Heard learned counsel for both the  parties.

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 unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer under the OPs and got a bill dated 22.7.2015 wherein he has been asked to pay bill with contract load of 3 KW instead of 1 KW used by him. Complainant has never applied before the OPs for enhancement of energy. Complainant again got a bill on 19.8.2015 for the month of July, 2015 in which the load capacity has been mentioned as 3 KW of the complainant.  Complainant paid the bill amount on 27.8.2015 and asked the person from whom he received the bill where the load factor has been enhanced. The said person advised the complainant to meet OP Nos. 2 and 3 and complainant met the OPs in their office but it was not fruitful. Finally, he got another bill on 21.9.2015  for an amount of Rs.40,433/- payable by the complainant to the OPs on or before 28.9.2015. In April, 2017 again the complainant requested the OPs to revise the bill but they advised the complainant to deposit of Rs.53,764/-. Finding no other way, the complainant filed the complaint.

4.     OPs filed written version stating that they are not involved any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice an in the instant case, the complainant has availed electrify by hooking process   and as such they started proceeding u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by following due procedure. 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 the same is allowed on part against the OPs. The OPs are hereby directed to reduce the energy load work. They are also directed to revise and rectify the bill for the month August, 2015 as well as the bills of subsequent months till the date of filing the complaint. They are also directed to bill amounts of successive three months prior to August, 2015 and find out the average bill. The bills from the month of August, 2015 and subsequent months. The OPs are further directed to regularize the bills accordingly and impose the same upon the consumer and  receive the revenue accoridngly. The OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and unnecessary harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the complainant. The OPs are hereby directed to carry out this order within 30 days on receipt of the copy of the order.”

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.     Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the OPs have issued the bills without any basis. So, he supports the impugned order.

8.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.     It is not in dispute that the complainant has received always the bills on load factor basis but the verification report produced by the appellants today shows that the complainant was involved in using of power supply by unauthorized means i.e. hooking process. The further  documents show that there is already provisional assessment and final assessment made by the OPs. From these materials,  we  are of the view that there was theft committed by the complainant  for which the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. 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.

        Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

       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.