DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 03/2020

In the matter of:

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the complaint pertaining to two electricity connections bearing CA No. 151894401 (Domestic) and CA No. 151894402 (Commercial) energized by OP on 15.07.2016 which connections were disconnected abruptly by OP in December 2019 alleging arrears thereon unpaid by the complainant. The complainant therefore was seeking relief of reinstallation of both connections by OP in the complainant’s premises for restoration of electricity supplied alongwith compensation. Additionally complainant filed interim application under Section 13 (3B) of CPA praying for restoration of the electricity supplied with respect to both CA numbers.
2. Notice was issued to OP on the date of admission i.e. 13.01.2020 which was received by OP on the same date as Dasti Summons through complainant and OP entered appearance on 23.01.2020 and filed reply to the application submitting that the present case pertains to Direct Theft of Electricity (DTE) and therefore not maintainable before this Forum. OP opposed the application the application by submitting that the inspection of the complainant’s premises was carried out by it on 02.06.2016 on which it was detected that a fake meter No. 12352309 was founds installed in the premise through which the user, Raj Kumar Koshik was deriving electricity by way of its direct theft. OP prepared the Enforcement Inspection Report, Form for Assessment of Connected Load and Circuit Diagram and Detailed Observations, Seizure Memo, Enforcement Evidence Material Receipt and Assessment Bill for Theft (Direct Theft) all dated 02.06.2016 i.e. the date of inspection whereby the said theft was noted/reported at the user site. Accordingly, OP raised theft bill of Rs. 29075.84Paise with due date 20.06.2016 and upto dated to Rs. 47216/- which bill is correct and legally recoverable from complainant as per Electricity Act 2003. The OP issued notices dated 02.09.2019 and 05.11.2019 to the complainant demanding payment of Rs. 46,781/- from him as outstanding arrears towards theft of energy / misuse charges. However, due to non payment by the complainant, both CA Numbers as aforementioned were disconnected on 03.10.2019 and 08.12.2019 respectively. OP therefore prayed for dismissal of the application relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Vs Anis Ahmed (2013) 3 SCC 372 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 and Section 135 to 140 (offences) of Electricity Act 2003 do not fall within the meaning of consumer dispute as the assessment and order is a quasi judicial decision over which Consumer Forum shall have no power to redress any dispute since it does not fall within the definition of ‘service’ or ‘complaint’. OP has attached copy of Enforcement Inspection Report, Form for Assessment of Connected Load and Circuit Diagram and Detailed Observations, Seizure Memo, Enforcement Evidence Material Receipt and Assessment Bill for Theft (Direct Theft) all dated 02.06.2016, bill for the month of December 2019 with respect to both CA numbers, notices dated 02.09.2019 and 05.11.2019 by OP to Mr. Raj Kumar Koshik to pay outstanding dues, copy of consumption pattern of meter No. 70129780 and meter No. 35168372 and copy of recent site report dated 22.01.2020.
3. We have heard the arguments addressed by both sides.
4. The disconnection of electricity in complainant’s premise is not disputed by either of parties. However the complainant submitted that he was given possession of the said premises in February March 2016 after which he started residing there in July 2016 when both CA Numbers were got installed by him from OP on 15.07.2016 and argued that he has no connection with the fake meter in question and has diligently pay all bills since July 2016 onwards to OP and none of the bills show any arrears of electricity qua the said premises.  To the Forum questioned to both parties of identity of Raj Kumar Koshik, both submitted that he is the son of the complainant and was present on the premises on the date of enforcement inspection i.e. 02.06.2016. The OP submitted that he refuse to sign any/all documents and drew our attention to the endorsement ‘refused to sign’ in all documents filed by OP pertaining to inspection.
5. On bare perusal of the documents, it cannot be ignored that the present case, in light of exhaustive documents filed by OP appears to be a case of theft of electricity. The judgment of U.P. Power Corporation (Supra) has been consistently followed by Hon'ble National Commission in judgment of Torrent Power Ltd Vs Subhash N. Shah in RP No. 2127/2010 decided on 03.09.2015 and Walmik Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd in RP No. 1112/2014 decided on 13.01.2015, the Hon'ble National Commission held that Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction in case of theft of electricity and once the electricity company takes the plea that it is a theft of electricity, the Consumer Forum would have no jurisdiction in the matter and it cannot go into the question whether there was actually theft of electricity or not. The Hon'ble National Commission in CESC Ltd Vs Smt. Sunita Pal III (1997) CPJ 116 (NC) noticed the prima facie evidence of theft and taking into consideration its earlier decision in M.P. Electricity Board Vs Babu Lal II (1995) CPJ 132 (NC), held that where there was tempering with the meter connection by consumer, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of electricity Board so as to warrant grant of any relief to the consumer in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, relying on the settled proposition of law in the afore sited case laws, we are of the considered opinion that neither is this Forum competent to grant any interim relief or to entertain the present complaint per se  as it pertains to theft of electricity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anis Ahmed (Supra) case held inter alia that acts of indulgence in “Unauthorized use of electricity” by a person, as defined in clause (B) of explanation below Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 neither has any relationship with “unfair trade practice” or “restrictive trade practice” or “deficiency in service”. The Hon'ble National Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of Electricity Act and not maintainable before Consumer Forum.  
6. We therefore, in light of the assessment in the present case done by OP qua the complainant under Section 135 of Electricity Act as per Seizure Memo dated 02.06.2016 dismiss the application as well as the complaint as non maintainable and as held in a similar case of UHBVNL through its SDO Vs Shashi Chander IV (2014) CPJ 477 (NC), grant liberty to the complainant to seek redressal of his grievance before appropriate authority under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.  
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.  File be consigned to record room.
9.  Announced on  24.01.2020