Heard learned counsel for both parties.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs. It is alleged inter alia that he complainant got  a bill in the month of July, 2015 for Rs.45,736/-. Complainant alleged that  the existing old meter was replaced by the OPs in the month of June, 2015 and a new meter was installed outside the house of the complainant.It is further alleged that no notice was  issuedto the complainant by the OPs while raising the bill. Thereafter, the complainant made complaint before the OPs but it was in vain. Hence, the complaint was filed.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that on 5.7.2016, they were set ex parte and again  that order was set aside and matter was remanded to the learned District Commission for fresh disposal. It is further case of the OPs that on 26.3.2015  there was verification made by the Vigilance Squad of the OPs and found meter has been tampered and the seal was broken. Thereafter, provisional assessment was made and provisional bill u/s 126 of the Electricity Act was issued to the complainant. So, the OPs have no any deficiency in service.

5.      After hearing both parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                             “xxxxxxxxx

            The complain case is allowed on contest against the OPs. Therefore the OPs are directed to issue correct and proper bill to the complainant by deleting an amount of Rs.39,958/- from the bill from June, 2015 onwards, apart from that the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for harassment and Rs.3000/- for legal expenses to the complainant within 45 days from the date of order, failing which the complaint shall proceed in accordance with the law against the OPs. Hence, the interim order dated 23.11.2020 stands vacated Accordingly, the CC disposed off.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not understanding the fact of the case properly. According to him there is clear case of meter tampering which is covered u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. When there was no objection filed from the side of the complainant,  theydirected the complainant to pay such amount. He also cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. and others vrs. Anis Ahmed reported in (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 491.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent  submitted that the meter was installed outside the house and was notinside. The meter was subject to control of the licensed. If anything happened to the meter, it is not the responsibility of the complainant. So, he supports the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      It is admitted fact that the complaint is a consumer under the OPs. It is admitted fact that there was bill issued for Rs. 45,736/-. It is settled in law that the complainant has to prove his case and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that on 26.3.2015,  there was inspection of meter and  it was found that the meter seal was broken and the meter was found running slow 62.42%. Thereafter, the provisional bill for Rs.39,958/- was issued. After sufficient opportunity was given to the complainant, he did not submit anything. There was final assessment made on asking the complainant to pay Rs.39,958/-.

10.    From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the complainant has to protect his meter and apparatus. When the complainant admitted that there is inspection, the penal bill has to be rightly raised. Once the case is coming u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, the consumer complaint is not maintainable in view of the decision of U.P.Power Corporation Ltd and others (Supra).

11.    In view of above decision, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has not followed the correct  lawand as such,the said impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is set aside.

12.    The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.