Heard learned counsel for the appellants.None appears for the respondent.

2.     This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.     The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being a consumerunder the OPs wasusing electricity but on 9.2.2008 at 6.05 AMthe MRT squad  inspected the premises of the complainant and found that the complainant was using power unauthorizedly by hooking process.Thereafter, they issued penal bill of Rs. 69,009/- to file objection if any. Complainant filed objection denying all the allegations. Since the meter is functioning well, the objection was not considered correctly.  Complainant challenged the amount and filed the complaint.

4.     OPs filed written version denying the allegations. He submitted that there was already verification under the OERC Code and after due consideration the case u/s 126 of the Electricity Act has already started and thereby they have no deficiency in service on their part.

5.     After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxxxxxxxx

The complaint be and there same is allowed on contest against the OPs. OPs are directed to waive the penalty amount of Rs.69,009/- and to pay Rs.500/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as to pay Rs.200/- towards cost of litigation to the complainantwithin one month hence.”

6.     Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not applying the judicial mind to the facts of the case. According to him since the hooking process was unauthorized, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P.PowerCorporation Ltd. and others vrs. Anis Ahmad AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2766  thecomplainant can make representationbefore the authority under the Electricity Act. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

8.     The verification report is clear to show that the concerned officer has already found that the complainant was using electricity by hooking process and after the report was prepared the complainant refused to sign. Thereafter, the penal bill was sent as per Annexure – B. Thus, we are convinced that there is already case u/s 126 of the Electricity Act made out against the complainant. In such case, we are restrained to pass any order in favour of the complainantbecause the Hon’ble Supreme Court have passed order in U.P.PowerCorporation Ltd. & others (Supra) that consumer complaint is not maintainable where there is theft of energy or unauthorized use  of energy or tampering of meter or bye passing of energy. In view of aforesaid decision the presentcomplaint is not maintainable. As such the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.