Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.
This is a petition filed by the complainant U/s. 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 for some reliefs.
2. The case of the complainant is that his residential house is situated at Benagadia ,having electric supply vide Consumer No. AC 505 - 2499. The connected demanded load was 1 K.W under Domestic category. The complainant was paying the electricity bill regularly as per meter reading taken by the meter reader .At the time of taking meter reading the staff of the opp.party never found any tampering of meter or breaking of seal. The copy of the bill and receipt for September-2010 are annexed as Annexure 1 & 2 . In absence of the complainant on 23.11.2010 without prior intimation suddenly some persons/staffs of the opp.party came to the house of the complainant, took thumb impression of his old illiterate father forcibly on authorisation letter and verification report. They broke open the seal and tampered the meter and added a T.Vand Heater on their report illegally and arbitrarily which were not available in the house . The opp.party declared the meter defective without any test. Photo copy of Authorisation letter & Verification Report are annexed as Annexure- 3 & 4. The opp.parties served a notice dtd. 08.12.20110 for provisional assessment and demanded an excess Rs. 14,801.60 within 30 days .The photo copy of provisional assessed report is annexed as Annexure-5. The complainant met the opp.party and verbally lodged complaint, who assured him to look into the matter . In the bill for December, 2010 the opp.party enhanced the load from 1 K.W to 2 K.W and adding the provisional assessment amount Rs. 14,801.60.The photo copy of the December,2010 annexed as Annexure-6 . On the other hand the concerned line man is threatening to disconnect the power supply to the premises of the complainant for non-payment of the provisional assessment bill, for which cause of action for filing of the present complaint. The opp.party illegally declared the meter defective and enhanced the load 1 K.W to 2 K.W. Due to the high handed action of the opp.party the complainant has suffered heavy loss, damage, mental agony and harassment . Hence this case.
3. Notice was issued to the opp.party on 04.01.2011 .Learned counsel for the opp.party entered his appeared on dtd. 03.02.2011 but no sow cause filed.
4. During argument the Learned counsel for the opp.party challenged the maintainability of the present proceeding before this Forum. According to him in this case there is a provisional assessment notice to the complainant by the opp.party on 08.12.2010 , in a proceeding which has been initiated against him U/s. 126 of Electricity (Amendment) Act,2007.There is no deficiency of service at all by the opp.party and the complainant is not coming under the definition of consumer. He relied on the document filed by the complainant. Admittedly the opp.party has neither filed written statement nor any documents was filed . On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently urged that the present proceeding is maintainable before this Forum ( at present Commission) and the point of maintainability cannot be raised at this stage , as he has not filed his written statement in time.
5. Perused the complaint petition filed by the complainant. At Paragraph-3 of his complaint petition, the complainant has mentioned that on 23.11.2010 some employees of the opp.parties came to the house of the complainant without any prior notice and served a illegal report to his old illiterate father as the complainant was not present at home. It is further alleged that tactfully those staffs obtained the Thumb impression of the father of the complainant on authorisation and verification report by threatening him to disconnect the electric supply to his house. At paragraph- 4 it is that on 08.12.2010 the opp.party served a notice for provisional assessment for excess load and asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 14,801.60 within 30 days. The complainant has filed the photo copy of the authorisation dtd. 23.11.2010 and physical verification of electrical installation dtd. 23.11.2010 issued by the staff of the opp.party to his father. On perusal of those documents it appears that the father of the complainant was present at the time of physical verification of the premises of the complainant and after due authorisation by the father of the complainant, the physical verification was made by the staffs of the opp.party. The complainant also filed the photo copy of the notice for provisional assessment along with the photo copy of calculation sheet received by him from the organisation of the opp.party. On perusal of the said notice for provisional assessment it is clear that , it has been issued U/s. 126 of Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007. In the said notice the complainant was directed to file his show cause before the competent authority within 30 days of receipt of said letter as provided U/s. 126 (3) of Indian Electricity Act,2007 .So from the documents filed by the complainant itself it is clear that a proceeding U/s. 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2007 has been initiated by the organisation of the opp.party. From the provisional assessment report it appears that at the time of verification the status of the meter was defective one and the connected load was 2 K.W instead of 1 K.W . The consumption of more electrical energy by the complainant for which he has been authorised to consume is coming under the category of “unauthorised use of electricity” .The unauthorised use of electricity by the complainant has no relationship with “unfair trade practice” or “restrictive trade practice” or “deficiency in service” nor does it amounts to “hazardous service” by the licensee. Such act of unauthorised use of electricity has nothing to do with charging price in excess .Therefore, the unauthorised use of electricity by the complainant does not fall within the meaning of “complaint” .Therefore the present complaint against an assessment U/s. 126 by the opp.party is not maintainable before this Consumer Forum or new Commission.
6. We find sufficient force on the argument advance by the Learned Counsel for the opp.party. There is also no deficiency in service provided by the opp.party to the complainant. A point of law i.e maintainability of the proceeding can be raised at any time. So the argument of the Learned Counsel for the complainant that the question of maintainability cannot be raised at this stage is not acceptable. From the materials on record it is clear that the complainant is not a “consumer” in this case and there is no deficiency in service by the opp.parties ( Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012 ,arising out of SLP (c) No. 35906 of 2011 ,U.P. Power Corporation Ltd & others Vrs. Anis Ahmad passed on July 1st 2013 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) .
7. Hence order :-
: O R D E R :
The case be and the same is dismissed on contest.