The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is A.K Singh Samanta, Assistant Vigilance Officer, NESCO, Markona, O.P No.2 is A.K Pradhan, S.D.O, NESCO, Markona, O.P No.3 is S.K Agasti, Assistant Manager (Finance), NESCO, Soro, O.P No.4 is A.K Dalai, J.E, NESCO, Ada and O.P No.5 is the C.E.O, NESCO, Head Office, Januganj, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a bonafide domestic Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.SM-69018 and was paying electric bills regularly. But, the O.Ps on 24.11.2015 verified the premises of the Complainant without any information and broke the sealed cover of the meter and forcibly entered into the house of the Complainant and counted the switches in the switch board. The O.Ps have categorically prepared a false list showing use of arbitrary numbers of appliances with a load of 2 K.W against the contract demand of 1 K.W. The O.Ps obtained the signature of the Complainant on the verification report. When the Complainant approached the O.Ps, the O.Ps threatened the Complainant to disconnect the power supply, if the exorbitant money is not paid, which is illegally demanded by the O.Ps, amounts to deficiency of service, causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for rectification of electric bill along with compensation for mental agony, financial loss and litigation cost. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    3. Sufficient opportunities were given to O.Ps No.1 to 4, but they have not filed their written version in this case. The Advocate for O.Ps No.1 to 4 filed a maintainability petition on 23.06.2016, which is to be heard at the time of main hearing as per order dtd.26.07.17 passed by the Forum.

                    4. Though sufficient opportunities were given to O.P No.5, but he has not appeared in this case. The O.P No.5 is also set ex-parte.

                    5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case. So, his pleading is his case. According to his pleading, on 24.11.2015, the O.Ps verified the premises of the Complainant without any information and broke the sealed cover of the meter. They have also forcibly entered into the house of the Complainant and counted the switches in the switch board. Then the O.Ps have categorically prepared a false list showing using of arbitrary numbers of appliances with a load of 2 K.W against the contract demand of 1 K.W. Thus, the O.Ps prepared a verification report and also obtained the signature of the Complainant on it. When the Complainant approached the O.Ps, the O.Ps threatened the Complainant to disconnect the power supply, if the outstanding money is not paid, which amounts to deficiency of service, causes mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. So, the Complainant has filed this case praying for rectification of electric bill along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the Advocate for O.Ps No.1 to 4 has not filed their written version, rather filed a maintainability petition and also argued that this case is not maintainable before this Forum as it is a case U/s.126 of I.E Act-2003. The O.P No.5 is set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. The Advocate for O.Ps No.1 to 4 has also filed the spot verification report, provisional assessment order and final assessment order vide Annexure-A, Annexure-B and Annexure-C respectively, which are also available in the case record. So, according to settled principle of law, when there is an assessment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. However, in view of the authority reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that complaint against assessment made U/s.126 or action taken against those committing offences U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003, held, is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. Civil Court’s jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect to the decision of assessing Officer U/s.126 or with respect to a decision of the appellate authority U/s.127 is barred U/s.145 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, it is clear that after notice of provisional assessment to the person alleged to have indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by an assessing officer, who is a public servant, on the assessment of ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ is a quasi-judicial decision and does not fall within the meaning of “consumer dispute” U/s. 2(1) (e) of Consumer Protection Act. Offences referred to in Sections-135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted U/s.153 of Electricity Act, 2003, hence, also the complaint against any action taken under Sections-135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section-3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections-173, 174 and 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made U/s.126, or offences U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity” do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” as defined U/s. 2(1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                    6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority along with an application for condonation of delay, if desired/ required. Hence, Ordered:-   

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps No.1 to 4 and on ex-parte against O.P No.5, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 23rd day of April, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.