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 the opposite parties to set aside the assessment notice issued for Rs.45,000/- and also award compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards damages.
2. The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant is utilizing the electricity from service connection bearing No.10142 since 10 years. The complainant is paying the bills regularly. On 19-09-10, the authorities of opposite party inspected the complainant’s service connection and one seal out of three seals found cut. The opposite party took the signature of complainant on the inspection notice. Even though the complainant is not well versed in English language he singed inspection notice. On demand made by the opposite parties, the complainant attended before the 3rd opposite party on 19-10-10 to test the meter. The 3rd opposite party took the signature from the complainant much before testing the meter. The complainant requested the 3rd opposite party to explain the contents of the report as he does not know English language, for which they accepted. Replying upon the above report, the authorities of 2nd opposite party sent an assessment notice for Rs.41,060.90ps. + Rs.4000/- compounding fees. From May, 2006 till November, 2009 though the complainant is not residing in the premises of service connection in issue, the complainant is paying minimum charges regularly. But the authorities of 2nd opposite party assessed the units taking into consideration the utilities which are not under usage for the period of September, 2009 to September, 2010. In April, 2010 purchased and started using air conditioner. Though the complaint produced bill of AC purchased by him, the 2nd opposite party calculated the bill for 7 months period prior to purchase of AC. The service meter of complainant is an old model magnetic meter fixed before 10 years. It is upto the opposite party to change the old meter and install high accuracy meter, which they neglected. At the time of painting house due to watering, one of the wires might have rusted to worse and cut. Had the 2nd opposite party have changed the old meter, the present situation might not have arrived.
Out of three seals only one seal is cut, other two seals are connected. In these conditions, it is impossible to stop the meter running. The 3rd opposite party in the meter testing report had never mentioned that the complainant stopped the meter or committed pilferage of energy. There is a chance that when the meter is rotating, the disk of the meter may touch on either side of it and get scratched. In the meter testing report, the 3rd opposite party did not mention that the scratches present on the disk are due to avoidance of running of meter. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have intentionally made the complainant liable on grounds of pilferage of energy. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.
3. The 2nd opposite party filed its version and the same is adopted by opposite parties 1 and 3, which is brief as follows:
This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since a special tribunal (I Addl. District Court, Guntur) is constituted under the Indian Electricity (AP Amendment) Act, 2000 and also Electricity Act, 2003 to decide any disputes relating to assessments etc. made pertaining to cases of pilferage of energy.
The complainant’s service connection No.10142 obtained under Cat-I (domestic) situated in Stambalagaruvu, Guntur was inspected by the Addl. Assistant Engineer, Dist-4, Operation, APSPDCL, Guntur on 19-09-10 at 14.20 hours and noticed that the meter body 1 no.MRT seal not available and the same was tested on 19-10-10 in the presence of consumer with 3rd opposite party. The results mentioned incriminating points as below, which are communicated vide endorsement D No.2657/2010 dt.23-10-10 to the complainant.
1. B side MRT seal found cut
2. Metallic starches on either side of rotating disk
3. Meter running slow
Thus the consumer has committed pilferage of energy. The past record of the consumption discloses that the consumption being recorded by the meter is duly low taking into account, the connected load, number of hours of usage of electricity and the purpose for which the consumer availing the power and other related factors. Basing on the inspection pending determination of the civil liability by the electricity tribunal under section 154(5) of Electricity Act, 2003, the 2nd opposite party issued provisional assessment notice dt.02-11-10 by estimating the loss at Rs.41,010/- from 20-09-09 to 19-09-10 and Rs.4000/- compounding fee to avoid criminal liability. The complainant paid half of the assessment amount and compounding fee on 06-11-10. The Supt. Engineer operation APSPDCL, Guntur granted three equal installments for payment of balance assessment i.e., Rs.6,900/- per installment but the complainant failed to pay even one installment. If the consumer aggrieved by the notice, he has to prosecute his case before I Addl. District Court, Guntur i.e., Special Tribunal. Thus there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of opposite parties and the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The complaint and 2nd opposite party have filed their respective affidavits. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A14 were marked. No documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.
5. Now the points for consideration are
- Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINT No.1
The complainant is utilizing the electricity from service connection bearing No.10142 since 10 years. On 19-09-10, the authorities of opposite party inspected the complainant’s service connection and one seal out of three seals found cut. The meter was tested with 3rd opposite party in the presence of complainant. The authorities of 2nd opposite party sent an assessment notice for Rs.41,060.90ps. + Rs.4000/- compounding fees, alleging that the complainant is guilty of theft of energy.
7. Section 145 of Electricity Act, 2003 reads as follows:
“No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter, which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126 of an appellant authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.”
8. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:
“The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”
9. The interference of civil courts is barred by section 145 of Electricity Act, 2003 and section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says that the provision of this Act are in addition to that Act but not in derogation of the provisions of the other Laws.
10. In 2011 (2) CPR 188 (NC) between Ishwar Singh Vs. Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., the National Commission observed “in case of theft of electricity Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to go into such issues. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the complainant, prima facie, is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint before the Consumer Forum was not maintainable.”
11. The complainant has filed the following citations in support of his contentions:
(1) 2010 CTJ 768 (CP) (NCDRC) between Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.Gajendra Chary, wherein it was observed by National Commission that Consumer Forums are not the courts of plenary jurisdiction, they cannot strike down the provisions of any Act or Rules or Clauses of any lawful agreement entered into between the parties.
(2) 2010 CTJ 1126 (CP) (NCDRC) between United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Joy Hukil and another, wherein the National Commission observed that all the legal proceedings in the country are not suits. There are petitions/complaints/ applications before the various tribunals or other authorities. A complaint filed before a Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act is not a suit.
12. The citations submitted by the complainant are not relevant to the facts of present case on hand.
13. In view of the above discussion and citation referred, the Forum opines that this complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
14. POINT No.2
Since this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, there is no need to answer this point.
15. POINT No.3
Since it is a theft of energy case, the Forum has not jurisdiction to decide the matter. Hence, it is dismissed.
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 30th day of June, 2011.
Sd/- x x x Sd/- x x x Sd/- x x x
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. |
DATE |
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
|
A1 |
02-11-10 |
Copy of assessment notice for theft of electricity |
A2 |
23-10-10 |
Copy of detailed examination report of L.T.III phase complaint meter |
A3 |
|
Account copy |
A4 |
06-11-10 |
Copy of temporary receipt in the name of complainant for payment of Rs.24,580/- |
A5 |
15-04-10 |
Copy of cash bill for purchase of air conditioner in the name of complainant |
A6 |
21-12-10 |
Copy of letter by complainant to opposite party |
A7 |
21-12-10 |
Copy of letter from Supt. Engineer, Operation Circle, APSPDCL,Guntur to SC No.10142, Cat-I, D-4 Section, Guntur |
A8 |
|
Copy of installment receipts issued by opposite party (4 in number) |
A9 |
29-04-11 |
Copy of letter from the AAO, ERO, Town II, Guntur to the Addl. Asst. Engineer, Operation, Distribution 4, Guntur |
A10 |
|
No due certificate |
A11 |
|
Copy of rules of opposite parties |
A12 |
07-04-11 |
Application soliciting information under RTI Act |
A13 |
26-05-11 |
Letter from BHEL to D.V.Lakshminarayana |
A14 |
16-05-11 |
Letter from BHEL to D.V.Lakshminarayana |
For opposite parties: NIL Sd/- x x x
PRESIDENT
