Date of Filing – 14.07.2017

Date of Hearing – 02.01.2018

            The instant Revisional Application under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Opposite Party to impeach the Order No.04 dated 19.06.2017 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 63/2017.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum directed the Revisionist/WBSEDCL to reconnect the electric connection at the premises of complainant within 7 days from date.

          The Opposite Party herein Barjahan Sk. being Complainant lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum asserting that he is a consumer under WBSEDCL being Consumer Id. No.113025692 in respect of his residence at Village-Moujpur, P.O.- Ramakanta Nagar, P.S.- Mandirbazar, South 24 Parganas.  On 09.02.2017 the Assistant Engineer of Joynagar CCC along with his staff conducted a raid at their village and lodged one FIR against his next neighbour (his son) and disconnected the electric line.  When the complainant approached the licensing authority, it was replied that unless the full amount of Rs.2,04,141/- is paid the electricity connection will not be restored.  Hence, the complainant/OP herein approached the Ld. District Forum with a prayer for direction upon the Assistant Engineer, Joynagar CCC of WBSEDCL for restoration of electric line.

          After filing of the complaint, the complainant also moved one application for restoration of electric connection being MA/163/2017.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the prayer with the direction as mentioned above.  Being aggrieved, the OP/WBSEDCL has come up in this Commission with the instant revision petition.

          The revisional jurisdiction of the State Commission flows from Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, which runs as under:-

          “to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”.  

          The above provision makes it quite clear that the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon this Commission is limited only to the extent of jurisdictional error or material irregularity in passing the order impugned.  Admittedly, there is no jurisdictional error on the face of the record.

          Now, we shall dwell upon to consider as to whether there was material irregularity in passing the order impugned.  The materials on record would reveal that on 09.02.2017 during inspection to the residence of the complainant along with other officials, the AE & Station Manager, Joynagar CCC of WBSEDCL noticed unauthorised use of electricity by means of direct hooking from the overhead distribution line of the WBSECL for commercial use bypassing the existing meter Sl. No.EE71033 committed by Iftekhar Sk. i.e. the son of the complainant.  Accordingly, one FIR was lodged with Mandirbazar P.S. and a case being Mandirbazar P.S. Case No.31/17 dated 10.02.2017 under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was registered against the son of complainant. Subsequently, one provisional assessment bill amounting to Rs.3,55,809/- was sent to the son of complainant and after affording reasonable opportunity, order of Final Assessment was passed where he was directed to pay Rs.2,04,141/- but till date the payment of the said amount is due.

          Evidently, the OP/Complainant has been living at Village – Moujpur, P.O.- Ramakantanagar, P.S. – Mandirbazar, Dist- South 24 Parganas and it is apparent from the statement of Iftekar Sk., son of the complainant dated 14.03.2017 to the AE & Station Manager of Joynagar CCC that he has admitted his guilt about the allegation of direct hooking which he has done on 27.01.2017.  On the allegation of theft of electricity, one case being Mandirbazar P.S. Case No.31/2017 dated 10.02.2017 under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 has been registered against the son of complainant.  It is also evident that in accordance with the provisions of Section 126(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 a Final Assessment Bill of Rs.2,04,141/- has been passed by the Assessing Officer.

          In a case reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491(UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. – Vs. – Anis Ahmed) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing over the matter, in Paragraph-47 (ii) has observed thus :-

          “(ii) A ‘complaint’ against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum”. 

          Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for an appeal by any person aggrieved by an order of the Assessing Officer to the Appellete Authority as may be prescribed within the period of 30 days from the order.  It also provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless an amount equal to one-third of the assessed amount is deposited with the licensee.  Therefore, against the final order the complainant or his son should have preferred an appeal.  Therefore, keeping in view the legislative mandate, the Ld. District Forum had no scope to pass an order otherwise contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act.

          The Regulation No.55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013 has a statutory force and Regulation No. 3.4.2 prescribes – “The licensee shall be eligible to recover from a new and subsequent consumer (s) the dues of the previous and defaulting consumers in respect of the same premises only if a nexus between the previous and the defaulting consumer(s) and the new consumer(s) in respect of the same premises is proved.  The onus of proving a nexus, if claimed by a licensee, shall lie on the licensee”.

          The OP/complainant has tried to suppress the actual fact by not mentioning his relation with Iftekar Sk. in the petition of complaint.  For criminal offence, the son of the complainant will face trial but so far as civil liability is concerned, the complainant is equally responsible and unless the amount of final assessment is made, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (supra) the Ld. District Forum should not have passed the impugned order rather the Ld. District Forum ought not to have admit the complaint which is not maintainable.

          Considering the above, I must say the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and as such I am constrained to interfere with the order impugned.

          For the reasons aforesaid, the instant Revision Petition is allowed on contest.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

          The impugned order is hereby set aside. 

          The CC/63/2017 pending before the Ld. District Forum being not amenable before a Forum constituted under the Act stands rejected.

           The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur for information.