TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER JALGAON Vs. JAYASHREE RAMAKANT CHHAPANIMOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 5. 12. 2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 4. 4. 2002 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ).

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner/complainant was a consumer of electricity under account No. A-35. He received a notice dated 9. 2. 1998 for depositing penalty amount of Rs. 91,277 from respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 based on the checking date 15. 7. 1997. After the order in appeal dated 12. 11. 1998 passed by the respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2, the petitioner received revised bill of Rs. 49,204. Vadility of this bill was challenged by the petitioner by filing complaint which was contested by the respondents. In written version a preliminary objection was raised in regard to the maintainability of complaint itself before the District Forum. It was further stated that the premises of the petitioner was checked by the Assistant Director (vigilance) on 5. 8. 1996 and he was found using 15 BHP load against the sanctioned load of 12. 5 BHP. Premises of the petitioner was again checked by the vigilance party on 15. 7. 1997 and two numbers of M and T seals were found broken and petitioner indulging in theft. So, a notice dated 9. 2. 1998 demanding amount of Rs. 91,277 was issued to him. Meter was sent to the laboratory for examination and as per laboratory report the seals of meter had been tampered with. Connection of the petitioner was disconnected and case was also reported to the police for registering a case against him. It was also alleged that petitioner had filed appeal under Clause 24-A (xiii) of the Sales Circular No. 4/91 before respondent No. 2. He also filed writ petition No. 5563 of 1998 in Punjab and Haryana High Court and in view of direction made in writ petition, the appeal was decided by respondent No. 2 on 12. 11. 1998. Bill was thereafter raised in cosonance with the appellate order for a sum of Rs. 49,204 which the petitioner did not pay. District Forum dismissed the complaint as not maintainable under the Act in view of the ratio in Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar, III (1997) CLT 306 (SC)=1997 (1) CCC Suppl. 1 (SC ). Copy of this decision was not made available by either of the parties to this revision.

(3.) SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. Avadh Kaushik for the petitioner is that even the reduced demand of Rs. 49,204 raised by respondent No. 1-Corporation was illegal and the complaint filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of that demand, etc. was maintainable. It has been pointed out that the petitioner had been acquitted of the charge of committing theft of electricity by the Additional Chief Magistrate, Kurukshetra by the order dated 7. 8. 2006. Admittedly, the petitioner against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 91,277 had filed appeal as provided by Sale Circular No. 4/91 and vide order dated 12. 11. 1998, the appeal was decided by respondent No. 2 and in conformity with the appellate order, the respondent No. 1 had issued bill dated 18. 11. 1998 for a sum of Rs. 49,204. Since the demand for this amount was based on the order dated 12. 11. 1998, it could not be assailed by filing complaint before a District Forum. The remedy open to the petitioner was to have filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. Complaint was thus rightly held to be not legally maintainable under the Act. Judgment dated 7. 8. 2006 has no relevance whatsoever on the issue on hand. Orders passed by Fora below do not suffer from any illegality of jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Act. Accordingly, revision is dismissed with Rs. 2,500 as cost to respondent No. 1. R. P. dismissed.