Suresh Chandra, Member
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:-
œFrom the documents produced on record, it is a well proved case of theft of energy in a novel way adopted by the complainant and as such the penalty imposed upon the complainant by the opposite parties for committing theft of energy causing loss to the State Exchequer, cannot be termed as œdeficiency of service?. The District Forum at the time of passing the order dated 30.6.2004 has not considered all these aspects and as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.?
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.
3. In view of the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.and Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad (Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 decided on 1.7.2013), the complaint filed in the present case before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the revision petition, we dismiss the consumer complaint with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy available to him before the appropriate Forum.