Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      This appeal is filed by the original opposite parties; feeling aggrieved by the dtd.10.05.2012, passed by District Consumer Forum, Amravati in consumer complaint No.10/2012, by which the said complaint has been partly allowed.

          The opposite parties, which filed the appeal, are hereinafter referred to as appellants and the original complainant is hereinafter referred to as respondent, for the sake of convenience.

2.      The case of the respondent as set out in the consumer complaint in brief is as under.

          The respondent obtained electric connection from the appellants to his motor repairing workshop in the year 2009. He is paying electric bills regularly.  However, on 21.11.2011 the flying squad of the appellants inspected the meter of the respondent and submitted a bill dtd.25.11.2011 for exorbitant amount of Rs.70,775/- for consumption of 4297 units, which is illegal. The respondent, therefore, wrote a letter to the appellants on 26.11.2011 making the grievance about that bill.  Thereafter, the appellants served a bill of Rs.73,740/- to the respondent on 19.12.2011.  Again the respondent wrote a letter dtd.21.12.2011 to the appellants demanding accounts of the bill and requesting for not to disconnect electric supply for non-payment of the bill. Thereafter, the respondent again wrote a letter on 29.12.2011 to the appellants. The appellants vide letter dtd.05.01.2012 gave explanation that the electric connection is given for industrial purpose in the category as LTVB, but the respondent is using it for commercial purpose, which falls under LT-2 category and that the bill is from the month of August 2009 to October 2011 under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 for Rs.70,775/-.  However, no category of the use of the electricity is changed since  installation of electric meter till the issuance of the disputed bill. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellants, the consumer complaint was filed by the respondent seeking direction to the appellant to cancel the disputed bill, to provide the accounts of the bill, not to disconnect electric supply of respondent herein, to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing physical & mental harassment to the respondent.

3.      The appellants appeared before the Forum below and filed their reply.  It is their case in brief that the complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable before the District Forum as the disputed bill is issued under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and there is provision of appeal under Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003 against the issuance of said bill. Moreover, it is their case that the complainant is using electric energy for commercial purpose, whereas the electric connection was given to him for industrial purpose and hence the disputed bill has been issued.  The appellants, therefore, prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

4.      The Forum below after hearing both parties, passed impugned order observing that as the category of the use of electricity by the respondent is not changed since providing electric connection to him, the appellant cannot revise the assessment under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, the Forum below partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to cancel the disputed bill of Rs.70,775/- and not to disconnect the electric supply of the respondent and either the appellant shall refund the amount paid by the respondent to the appellant as against disputed bill or to adjust that amount in future bills and also to pay him compensation of Rs.1,000/-.

5.      This appeal is thus filed by the original opposite parties against that order.

6.      Notice of this appeal was initially issued by this Commission to the respondent on 24.05.2016.  It was returned unserved with postal endorsement as “Not found on the given address”. Thereafter, this Commission issued another notice dtd. 20.04.2017 to the respondent and it was given Hamdast to the appellants’ advocate for service by Registered Post A.D. to the respondent.  The appellants’ advocate sent the said notice under closed envelop to the respondent and produced a postal slip dtd.26.04.2017. He also produced a track report duly obtained from India Post about service of that notice.  It showed that the envelop containing that notice was duly delivered by the postal authority to the respondent on 28.04.2017. Therefore, we found that as the said notice has been duly served and as he failed to appear in appeal, the appeal deserves to be proceeded exparte. Accordingly, as per order dtd.16.11.2017 the appeal proceeded exparte against the respondent.

7.      We have heard advocate Mr S L Alaspurkar appearing for the appellants.  We have also perused the record & proceedings of the appeal.  The learned advocate of the appellant has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UP Power Corporation Ltd & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, III(2013) CPJ 1(SC), in support of his submission that the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the said case that the complaint against the assessment made by the assessing officer under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the District Forum.

8.      Moreover, the learned advocate of the appellant has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Phool Chand Agarwal Vs. Bihar State electricity Board & Anr., IV-1994(1) CPR 798. It is held in the said case that the complaint concerning disconnection of electricity on non-payment of bill prepared on the basis of tariff in dispute is beyond the realm of redressal Forum.

9.      The learned advocate of the appellant further submitted that as the dispute is about non-payment of bill issued on the basis of the tariff in and as the said bill is issued under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, the Forum below erred in entertaining the complaint and partly allowing it. He, therefore, requested that the impugned order may be set aside.

10.    It is not disputed that the bill, which is challenged in the complaint, was issued under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 as electric connection was given to the respondent for industrial purpose, but he was found using the electricity for commercial purpose and disputed bill was issued to him for the past period on the basis of tariff applicable for commercial purpose.

11.    Thus, we are of the considered view that as the said bill is issued under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 the Forum below erred in partly allowing the complaint.

          Therefore, applying the aforesaid decisions, relied on by the appellants’ advocate to the facts of the present case, we hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained under law.  Thus, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is allowed.

ii.       The impugned order is set aside.

iii.      The complaint stands dismissed.

iv.      The respondent is at liberty to approach authority under Electricity Act, 2003 or before any competent authority for seeking redressal of his grievance as regards the disputed bill.

v.       No order as to costs in this appeal.

vi.      Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.