Electrcity
ASHOK TAVAKAR
(Querist) 09 March 2013
This query is : Resolved
1. What are the controvercies in between Sec 135 & 138 of Indian Elect. Act 2003. Are these sections overlapping each other? Sec 135 says that if a person taps any cable/ service line, be booked under 135, on the other hand if a person demages the electrical system of lisensee he should be booked under 138 then specifically where such accused exists , under 135 or 138. In Jaipur Discom we used to take compounding in case of 135 and civil liability in case of 138. 138 also involves court proceedings.
2. Whether Civil Liability is applicable in case of Non- consumer.
3. Recently our Discom hase issued an order to recover Compounding + Civil Liability in case of 135 (first time). I want to know in how many states in India such provision is there.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 10 March 2013
Academic query.
Please take help of books.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 10 March 2013
academic query.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 10 March 2013
we dont reply to academic queries
Guest
(Expert) 10 March 2013
Of course I can understand your curiosity, being an Executive Engineer of the Discom, it is necessary for you to know the distiction between the provisions of both the sections of law.
You just need to differentiate between the two terms, "tapping" and "damaging". If you feel there is any difference in these types of activities of a person, you won't find any overlapping in the provisions of both.
Just think about yourself, as a common man. If you draw electricity by theft from the connection of one of your neighbours and damage electrical fittings/system of another neighbour, under which of these clauses you can be booked in individual cases? That way, you would find answer yourself.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 March 2013
I am deciding to revert back.
To me :section 135 is to deal with accused who are consumers;
while section 138 shall deal accused who are not consumers or disconnected consumers ( at least at time the offence is found committed).
ASHOK TAVAKAR
(Querist) 24 March 2013
I think I was not able to make clear the issue. The issue is not this as to in which section such accused are to be booked under 135 or 138, but penalties and proceedings involved in sec 138 are more harsh then sec 135, Hence if we book th. of elect. by cable cut or service line cut in sec. 138, it becomes dificult to prove in court since sec 135 also have same provisions i.e. cable cut or service line cut is also covered in 135. Thus the judge says that when this pov. is in 135 then why u booked the same in 138, as proceedings of 138 are harsher then 135, means the accused may get the benifit of doubt that such activity of cable cut or service line cut has not been done by the accused, it was already there and he only tapped the supply from there. I want to say that there should be clear cut discrimination between sec 135 & 138.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 24 March 2013
u have to use laws as they are, until amended
by govt.
