Delhi

North East

CC/465/2024

SH. YOGENDER SAGAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S.E.S. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

Complaint Case No.465/24

 

 In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Yogender  Sagar S/o Lt. Sh. Pritam Pal, R/o H.No. D 116, St. No. 5, West Kamal Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	BSES YPL Through its Manager, Enforcement Cell, IP Extension, Patparganj, Narwana Road, Delhi-110092   BSES YPL Though its Manager, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094	Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

  Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties i.e. BSES YPL.
2. As per the complaint filed by the Complainant, the Complainant had commercial electricity meter issued from BSES. It is alleged by the Complainant that some agent of Opposite Party 2 misinformed him about some fault while taking a reading in electricity meter of the Complainant and broke the seal and he allegedly assured the Complainant that a new seal will be affixed after some time. On 09.06.24, electricity department officer came to house of Complainant for inspection and checked whole property and make videography and removed the commercial meter and told Complainant to come to office of electricity department for testing the meter and also installed a new electricity meter. When electricity meter was tested in lab and it is clearly observed by the testing team that meter plastic seals found missing and hologram seals found damaged. Meter LCD and LED found OK. Meter ultrasonic welding found OK. On 27.08.24 a showcause notice for dishonest abstraction of Energy was served to the Complainant from Opposite Party No.1 mentioning that department required some clarifications. Complainant attended personal hearing and submitted written reply and clearly stated that seal was broken by your team from last 4-5 months. On 05.09.24 a bill was generated for net assessment charge of amount of Rs. 13,56,197.11/- imposed on Complainant and Enf.CA No. 401660111. On 19.09.24 employee namely Prince from Opposite Party No.1 visited house of Complainant and said that Complainant would pay Rs. 3,30,000/- to the above named employee Prince, then the officials of the BSES will not take any action against him and not raise any excess bill towards the meter of the Complainant. It is alleged that the officials of BSES has generated a fake bill of Rs. 13,56,198/- by showing the connected load/traffic of 20.373/ Non Domestic LT. On 13.09.24 Complainant approached to CGRF vide grievances No. 6239665 and the officials of the CGRF assured the Complainant that to approach the concerned office, if the problems of the Complainant would not be cured, then the CGRF will take necessary action against the real culprits. Thereafter Complainant approached the Opposite Party office many times but all in vain. Complainant has prayed to remove the excess bill of Rs. 13,56,198/-  and Rs. 5,00,000/- for causing mental pain. He further prayed for Rs. 31,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Arguments on the admissibility of the complaint heard. File perused.
4. The perusal of complaint and material on record shows that the matter pertains to theft or unauthorised use of electricity. The Complainant has submitted that show cause notice was served upon him after the inspection of his premises and proceedings had taken place before Enforcement cell of Opposite Party and an order has been passed by the Assessing officer raising the DAE bill under Section 135 and 138 of Electricity Act,2003. Thus, it is clearly a case of electricity theft.
5. In this context, we would like to refer to decision by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anis Ahmad; arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906 of 2011 where it is held that the complaint against the assessment made by the assessing officer under Section 126, 135 and 140 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
6. The present matter pertains to theft of electricity and it is settled law that such matters are not maintainable before Consumer courts.
7. In view of above cited authority and discussion held, we are of the view that present consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, hence, liable to be dismissed.
8. Thus, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Order announced on 15.10.24.

Copy of this order be given to Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)                 Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President