Per Shri Pradeep G Kadu, Hon’ble President
1) This is a consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The briefly stated facts of the case and contentions of the Complainant are as follows:
a) The Complainant submits that he is the legitimate consumer of the Opposite Party i.e, the electricity supplier company. His step sister named Nabila Sayyed was forcefully occupied his Room No.14, Sarang Bhise Chawl, Bharat Nagar, Beside Veekays English High School, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400 083. The Opposite Party wrongfully transferred the pending dues of electricity bills of his step sister on his account. According to the Complainant, his step sister Nabila Sayyed was having Account No.101243610, Electricity Meter No.5624392. The electricity bill pending on her name of Rs.3,76,539/- wrongfully and illegally transferred to his account.
b) The Complainant submits that he was told that if he does not pay the electricity bill then his electricity supply will be discontinued. Further, the Opposite disconnected his supply of electricity.
c) The Complainant submits that the said act of the Opposite Party is a
"deficiency in service" as per the provisions of C P A, 1986. The Opposite Party also indulged into "unfair trade practices" under section 2(1)(r) of the said Act, as the Opposite party is a "service provider" and agreed to provide "SERVICE" under section 2 (1) (o) of the said Act. Hence, the present complaint is filed before this Commission to seek necessary relief.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
2) In the written statement, the Opposite Party denied all the allegations of the Complainant. In their submission, the Opposite Party mainly brought attention to the following facts.
a) Non disclosure of true and correct facts by the Complainant;
b) Earlier connection of step sister had pending dues of electricity and Complainant has admitted for clearing his step sister dues;
c) The Complainant not made payment of pending dues;
d) Theft of electricity after disconnection of electricity;
e) Report of Vigilance Department.
3) The Opposite Party placed reliance on the various provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulations in this regards. The Opposite party also referred the citations of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of “Manoramaben Vs Madhya, decided on 21st June, 2011” and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmad in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012, decided on 1st July, 2013”.
4) Based on the suppression of material facts and legal provisions in this regards the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of present complaint filed by the Complainant.
5) The Complainant is continuously absent since 2020. Further, he has not filed his affidavit of evidence also not advanced the arguments. We heard Adv.Smt.Mrunalini Warunjikar for the Opposite Party. After perusal the record of the complaint and the pleadings of the parties and considering the arguments advanced by the Opposite Party, the following arose for our consideration to decide the present complaint.
Sr. No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Is it proved by the Complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party ? | In Negative. |
2. | What order ? | As per final order |
Observations of the facts and findings thereof
6) It is noticed that the initial electricity connection was registered in the name of Nabila Sayyed having the same address. However, there are two different accounts namely Account No.101243610 which was for ground floor and another Account No.150509549 for the first floor. The said customer Mrs. Nabila had kept the first floor locked.
7) The Complainant who claims to be the step brother of said Nabila approached the Opposite Party for settlement of the case under the Electricity Act. Accordingly, by obtaining the due approval, the case was compounded on 11/09/2018. At that point of time, the Complainant gave an undertaking dated 14/09/2018 assuring that he will settle the remaining dues of the first floor consumption. These vital documents were suppressed by the present Complainant.
8) It is further submitted that based on the undertaking given by the
present Complainant, new connection was provided upon completion of the procedural requirements. The application accordingly, submitted by the Complainant. Even this application is also suppressed by the present Complainant herein.
9) Accordingly, a new connection was created in the name of the Complainant bearing Account No.152657973 in the month of September-2018.
10) Subsequently, it was found by the Opposite Party that after the new meter was installed, the present Complainant herein started using the said electric supply for the ground floor as well as the first floor.
11) It is further submitted that there were arrears of the first floor, whose CA number was 150509549 of Rs.3,79,030/-. It was transferred to the new account of the present Complainant herein being Account No.152657973 on 30/03/2019. Therefore, the amount was added in the new bill which was raised in the month of April-2019 by the Opposite Party.
12) It is submitted that the bills are raised against the account. The account was given to the premises. The premises were earlier used by the step sister of the present Complainant, as alleged. Therefore, now the Complainant is a successor in interest of the erstwhile consumer who has defaulted the amount of Rs.3,79,030/-. Hence, the Opposite Party is having a lawful authority to charge the said amount by adding in the bill which is in the name of the present Complainant.
13) During the consumption of electricity supply by Complainant, Vigilance Department of the Opposite Party inspected the premises of the Complainant. At the time of inspection, Vigilance Department found various irregularities of the Complainant. Accordingly, the report was prepared to that effect.
14) Further, it was brought to our attention that as per the then prevailing Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005, the Regulation 10.5 inter-alia provides that unpaid due shall be a charge on the premises and same shall be recoverableby the Distribution Licensee as due from legal representatives or successors-in-law or new owner / occupier of the premises, as the case may be. The relevant portion of the Regulation 10.5 is reproduced as under;
"Any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due to the Distribution Licensee which remains unpaid by a deceased consumer or the erstwhileowner / occupier of any premises, as a casemay be, shall be a charge on the premisestransmitted to the legal representatives /successors-in-law or transferred to the newowner / occupier of the premises, as the casemay be, and the same shall be recoverableby the Distribution Licensee as due fromsuch legal representatives or successors-in-law or new owner / occupier of thepremises, as the case may be".
15) Similar provisions are also provided under Regulation 12.5 of the existing Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensee including Power Quality) Regulations, 2021. Hence, the bills are raised against the account, as the account was given to the premises. Admittedly, the premises were earlier used by the step sister of the present Complainant.
16) Further, it is pertinent to mention that at the time of obtaining the electric supply, the Complainant himself has admitted to clear the entire dues pertaining to assessment and furthermore, in writing he himself declared that in the event of his failure to pay the assessed amount, the Opposite Party may transfer the dues on his new electricity account. Therefore, the Complainant is successor in interest of the erstwhile consumer, who has defaulted the amount of Rs.3,79,030/-.
17) Considering the facts analysed above, the Opposite Party is having a lawful authority to charge the said amount by adding in the bill which is in the name of the present Complainant having CA No.152657973.
18) As the Complainant failed and neglected to pay the electricity bills, the Opposite Party was constrained to issue notice of disconnection dated 19/08/2019 under section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, requesting the Complainant to make the payment of outstanding unpaid electricity bill amounting to Rs.4,17,080/- and further informing that if the payment is not made within 15 days, then the supply to the premise of the Complainant will be disconnected. The notice dated 19/08/2019 was dispatched on 19/08/2019, however, the same was returned with remarks "Unclaimed" on 29/08/2019.
19) As the Complainant failed to clear the dues as per the notice, the supply to the premises was disconnected on 13/02/2021 under the police protection. After removal of meter, the Opposite Party issued "Acknowledgement of Disconnection Notice".
20) After the said disconnection of the supply, the Opposite Party once again carried out site inspection of the Complainant’s premises on 20/11/2021. Upon site inspection and verification, the Complainant was found to be unauthorizedly using the direct supply from the meter cabin which amounts to theft of electricity under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
21) Accordingly police complaint was lodged for the theft of electricity. As on date, the total outstanding of the Complainant is Rs.5,93,967.22/- which the Complainant has not paid till date.
22) Thus, it can be clearly concluded from the facts submitted by the Opposite Party and the relevant documents submitted along with affidavit of evidence, the issue in the present complaint is arising out of and relating to the Assessment under Section 126 and the theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Citations relied by Opposite Party
23) We have gone through the citations referred by the Opposite Party.
i) In the case of Manoramaben vs Madhya, decided by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court on 21st June, 2011, wherein it was held that “in a case where the bill is raised alleging indulgence in unauthorizes use of electricity by a person under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the measures or the penal action taken for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in absence of any provision made under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain any complaint or any such action, the petitions preferred by the consumer are not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum”.
ii) In Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) No.35906 of 2011), U.P.Power Corporation Ltd., & Ors. Versus Anis Ahmad, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :-
a) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of "service" as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or "complaint" as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
b) A "complaint" against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum.
c) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice” adopted by the “service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service": “hazardous service"; or "the service provider has charged a price in excess of theprice fixed by or under any law".
24) On this background of the analysis of above facts, it would be appropriate to peruse the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Versus Anis Ahmad in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 passed in its order dated 01/07/2013, wherein it has been held that "a ‘complaint’ against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum".
25) In the light of above discussion and evidence produced on record, it is clear that the deficiency in service cannot be attributed to the Opposite Party-Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. No case of deficiency of service is made out by the Complainant against Opposite Party-electricity supply company. Thus, the Complainant is not entitled to any of the relief sought. In the result, we record our finding on Point No.1 in negative and pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Consumer Complaint No.CC/60/2019 is hereby dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.
