This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      28-03-11 in the presence of Sri K.Haranadha Raju, Advocate for complainant and of Sri N.Kiran Bhanu, Advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.34,531/- with interest @24% p.a. and to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and costs of complaint.  

2.      The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant is a tenant in the house of registered consumer of electricity K.Subhashini having service connection No.123088 from April, 2009.  The complainant paid electricity bills regularly upto March, 2010. On 11-04-10, at 17.30 hours, the opposite party inspected the said service connection and found that the consumer is utilizing the power supply by connecting directly from incoming phase to outgoing phase behind the meter, which amounts pilferage of power.  The opposite party issued provisional assessment notice ADE/O/T2/GNT/S.ER/D.No.912 dt.13-04-10 for Rs.60,912/- and further demanded the complainant to pay 50% of assessed amount i.e., Rs.30,431/- + supervision charges of Rs.50/- + Reconnection charges of Rs.50/- to the Assistant Accounts Officer, Guntur for restoration of supply and to pay balance amount in installments.  Further under the threat of arrest the complainant was directed to pay Rs.4000/- as compounding fee.  The complainant paid the said amount on 18-04-10 vide temporary receipt No.1067 to Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTs Police Station, Guntur.  The complainant fulfilled the condition of opposite party by paying amount of Rs.34,531/- to APSPDCL under receipt No.214912 dt.19-04-10.  The complainant is a tenant since one year in that premises.  The connection is directly from incoming phase service wire to outgoing phase behind the meter and utilizing the supply that was in vogue since long time and that wire was notice by opposite party that means pilferage was done previous consumer himself but not by the complainant.  At the time of inspection by opposite party, the noted the items utilized by complainant are one air conditioner, 0.5HP motor, 3 fans, one fridge, one grinder and four tube lights.  Out of the said items, the complainant purchased air conditioner on 11-11-09 vide tax invoice No.LGSL90-768 (Ex.A1) and has been utilizing it from the end of the March, 2010.

                The previous electricity bills paid by the previous occupier clearly shows that the status of the meter was in good condition and the usage of power was Rs.147/- to Rs.150/- p.m.  The opposite party authorities should have and might have verified the usage of power of pervious occupier.  The present occupier cannot be found guilty for the acts done by others.  Viewed from any angle fascinating the liability to the complainant is incorrect and unjust.  The opposite party without following the procedure laid down in electricity act issued an illegal and inflated assessment bill to the complainant.  Due to attitude and behavior of opposite party, the complainant suffered a lot mentally and financially, which falls under deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint.   

3.      The opposite party filed its version, which is brief as follows :

                The one K.Subhashini is having service connection bearing No.123088 under category-I (domestic) situated in road SVN colony, Guntur.  The premises of registered consumer was inspected by Addl. Assistant Engineer, Dist-IV, Operation, APSPDCL, Guntur on 11-04-10 at 17.30 hours and noticed that the consumer has connected from incoming phase service wire to outgoing phase service wire behind the meter and utilizing the supply and thereby committed pilferage of energy.  Basing on the inspection, this opposite party issued provisional assessment notice dt.13-04-10 by estimating the loss at Rs.60,862/- + Rs.50/- from 12-04-09 to 11-04-10 and Rs.4000/- towards compounding fee to avoid criminal liability.  The complainant paid half of the assessment amount and compounding fee.  If the consumer aggrieved by provisional assessment notice, he has to prosecute his grievance before I Addl. District Court, Guntur i.e., the Special Tribunal to determine the correctness of assessment.  There is neither deficiency of service nor negligence on the part of opposite party.   Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.             Both parties have filed their respective affidavits.  Ex.A1 to A8 are marked on behalf of complainant.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite party.

5.      Now the points for determination are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINTS 1 & 2

                The complainant alleged that he has been the tenant in the house of registered consumer K.Subhashini since April, 2009 and he started utilizing AC from March, 2010.  The complainant used the electricity not more than Rs.147/- to Rs.150/- pm.  But on 11-04-10 the electricity authorities inspected the house of complainant and found that it was connected directly from incoming phase service wire to outgoing phase service wire behind the meter.  A study of past record of consumption discloses that the consumption recorded by the meter is unduly low taking into account the connected load, the number of hours of usage of electricity, the purpose for which availed power on related factors.  Thus the consumer has committed pilferage of energy.

                The defect identified by the opposite party is not related to the working condition of meter.  Meter in this case is in good condition.  The question is the way the wires are connected to it. The opposite party found that the complainant is utilizing power by connecting directly from incoming phase service wire to outgoing service wire behind the meter which amounts to pilferage of energy in the service connection of complainant’s house and the inspection is done in the presence of complainant and the same is not denied by complainant.  Even though the complainant is a tenant he is responsible for the act done in the service connection, which is in his premises.  Thus the tenant/occupier/complainant committed pilferage of energy.  As per section 135 of Electricity Act, the theft of electricity is illegal and punishable. 

                The complainant in support of his case filed the following decisions:

1. II (2006) CLT 14 (SC) between Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Mam Chand, wherein

                    The jurisdiction of Fora is questioned by opposite party that assessment of duty for unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meter, distribution of meters and calibration of eclectic current are matters of technical nature, which cannot be decided by Consumer Forum in the light of provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 126, 135, 145. 

                    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Object and scope – Enacted for welfare of consumers and to protect them from exploitation for which Act provides establishment of Commissions for settlement of consumer disputes and matters connected therewith.  

                    The Supreme Court set aside the order of State Commission and National Commission and remitted the matter to the State Commission for fresh disposal of complaint in accordance with law.

1. II (2010) CPJ 44 (NC) between Mohan Lal & another Vs. Uhbvn & another, wherein it was held

                        Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 3, 21(b) – Electricity Act – Section 135 – Jurisdiction – Electricity theft – Notice sent compounding the theft – Notice challenged before Forum – Complaint dismissed – Order upheld in appeal – Hence revision – Additional remedy provided under Consumer Protection Act – Matter admitted for proper consideration on payment of cost.    

1. I (2010) CPJ 521 between  Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEB) & another Vs. Harilal Jagannath Chitte wherein the meter handled in the absence of consumer.  No representative present – Complainant’s signature on inspector report was missing – Supply disconnected without giving opportunity – Principles of natural justice violated – Difference in calculation of amount – Procedure under Section 135 of Electricity Act not followed – Bill illegal – Deficiency in service proved – Order upheld – Costs awarded.      

            But in the present case the meter was checked in the presence of complainant.  Sufficient opportunity was given to complainant to pay the amount. 

1. II (2010) CPJ 32 between SDO “OP" Sub-Division, UHBVNL Vs. Kapur Singh

                M & P seals found tampered – Meter checking was done in the absence of complainant - Meter dispute not referred to the concerned SDO - Penalty imposed straightaway - Mere tampering of seals not a conclusive proof of energy theft – Deficiency in service proved.

                In the present case, the above said problems did not arise.  The meter was checked in the presence of complainant and the defects found out by opposite parties were observed by complainant too.    

                On perusal of citations refereed above, the Forum opined that they are not relevant to the facts of the case on hand.

                In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and they are not liable for any compensation.

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 11^th day of April, 2011.

            Sd/-XXX                      Sd/-XXX                            Sd/-XXX

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For Opposite party:      NIL

                                                                                             PRESIDENT