BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD Vs. NEERAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges the order dated 21.11.2006 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1014 of 2006. By this order, the State Commission held, inter alia, that a dispute falling within the purview of section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (theft of electricity/dishonest abstraction of electrical energy) would also constitute a "consumer dispute" as defined in section 2(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act').

(2.) The facts of the case are that an inspection team of the petitioner's visited the premises of the respondent/complainant on 26.10.2005 and found several irregularities, including broken plastic seal on the top of the meter body wire and broken hologram seal on the right hand side of the meter body, slow running of the meter by as much as 67.5%, insertion of two illegal resistances inside the meter body to manipulate the meter recordings of consumption of energy, etc. The spot inspection reports on the meter and the connected load were prepared and the signature of the respondent obtained. Show cause notice was also issued to the respondent directing him to file his reply by 27.11.2005. The respondent filed his reply to the notice on 17.11.2005. The Assessing Officer passed a speaking order making out a case of dishonest abstraction of energy (DAE) against the respondent and, in terms of the said order, the petitioner raised a supplementary bill for Rs. 31,371/- payable by the complainant by 16.12.2005. However, the complainant, instead of paying the bill, filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi (hereafter, 'the District Forum'). The petitioner, on the other hand, filed a criminal complaint on 08.03.2006 against the complainant under sections 135 and 138 read with sections 150 and 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Special Court constituted under the said Electricity Act. The District Forum allowed the complaint and quashed the DAE bill, apart from giving some other directions to the petitioner. In appeal against this order, the State Commission passed the order noticed above.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent/complainant in person and considered the evidence and documents brought on record.