RAM KUMAR Vs. UTTARI HARYANA BIJILI VITRAN NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to the order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula ( 'State Commission ' for short) in F.A. No.2544 of 2004 by which the State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum, Karnal, allowed the appeal of the respondents and dismissed the complaint. The impugned order of the State Commission may be reproduced thus: -

(2.) WE have heard the petitioner who appeared in person and perused the record. We may note that in this case, on the basis of a checking report, a notice of assessment vide memo No.4167/CA dated 1.9.2013 after assessing an amount of Rs.32,170/ - for theft of electricity energy was sent to the petitioner / complainant. The petitioner after allegedly accepting his liability in the matter, deposited 70% of the penalty amount as per Sales Circular No.U -16/2003 (theft case) after which the respondents treated the offence of theft against the petitioner as compounded and the matter stood settled as per the rules and regulations of the respondents. However, later on he chose to file a consumer complaint in the matter against the respondents before the District Forum which was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 30.6.2004. This order of the District Forum, as stated above, came to be set aside in appeal by the State Commission vide its impugned order by which the consumer complaint was dismissed.