The case record is posted today for hearing on the interim petition and for supply of correct name and address of the O.P No.1 & 2. The complainant is absent and no step is taken on his behalf. The Advocate for O.Ps No.2 & 3 are present.

                                         Advocate for O.Ps No.2 & 3 submitted that the complainant is neither taking any step nor present on the date fixed since long for which the Ops, being the officials, are facing a lot of inconvenience and harassment. Furthermore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. Therefore, it is prayed to dispose of the case on merit according to law. 

                                         As it appears, it is seen that the O.Ps No.2 & 3 have made their appearance in this case and filed their written version. The complainant remained absent on 10.01.2022, 09.05.2022, 05.07.2022, 06.09.2022, 04.01.2023 and 27.03.2023. For the above latches on the part of the complainant, the matter could not be taken up expeditiously. Thus, taking into consideration the long absence of the complainant and the submissions advanced on behalf of the O.Ps No.2 & 3, it is felt just and proper to dispose of the case on merit as per law.

                                         It is averred in the complaint petition that the complainant is the owner of an Ice factory situated at Talapada hypothecated by the State Bank of India, Gopalpur Branch under PMEG programme. Accordingly, on 15.03.2013, the O.P No.3 supplied electricity connection to his factory on approval by O.Ps No.1 & 2 for 15 Kw load for small scale industry facility and for that he had deposited security amount of Rs.25,932.76 paisa. But all on a sudden, the O.P No.3 associated with his staffs, taking advantage of his absence in the factory premises, disconnected the power supply on the ground that he has by-passed the meter and imposed fine on him. On being aware about the fact, the complainant complained before O.P No.1 & 2 about his grievance. Accordingly, O.P No.2 directed O.P No.3 to restore the power supply receiving Rs.53,000.00 from him. He deposited the said amount and power supply was restored to his premises. But on 11.03.2016, O.P No.2 sent a letter showing fine of Rs.1,94,281.00. Thereafter, the complainant moved the Ops several times for settlement of the illegal demand on him, but in vain and lastly on 11.07.2021, O.P No.3 disconnected the power supply to his premises for which his factory has not been functioning, thereby he incurred financial loss as well as mental agony. Again on 17.09.2021, the complainant was served with a bill amounting to Rs.2,37,115.00 including the bill amount of Rs.42,834.00. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Ops for settlement, but the Ops denied to settle the same.

                                         On the other hand, the O.P No.2 & 3 stated in their written version, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. S.D.O, EI (R.E. No. II), Balasore, S.E.E.C, Balasore and in their absence this case cannot be subsided. Further, there is no such post like Chief Executive Engineer, TPNODL (O.P No.2). Further, the case is hit U/s 126 of Indian Electricity Act. Admitting the fact that the complainant is a consumer under them, it is specifically stated that on 23.02.2016, verification squad made a spot visit to the Ice factory premises of the complainant in his presence and it was detected that the complainant was availing power supply unauthorizedly by means of by-passing by cutting the incoming cable by three phases. Further, they found the incoming cable was cut and by-passing the meter through black insulated cable and connected to the distribution box and thereby the complainant was committed theft of power supply. The complainant also refused to sign on the verification report although received a copy thereof. Thereafter, provisional assessment order amounting to Rs.3,22,465.00 along with spot verification report was served on the complainant with intimation to file objection. The complainant filed objection admitting the theft of energy by-passing the meter and accordingly, final assessment order was passed amounting to Rs.1,94,281.00. But neither the complainant paid the said amount nor preferred appeal before the proper forum, rather filed this case before this Commission, which is not maintainable, as this Commission lacks jurisdiction to try the case.

                                         Perused the complaint petition, written version as well as the documents filed by both the parties. The complainant has vividly stated in his complaint petition that when the complainant was absent in his factory premises, the O.P No.3 and his staffs entered into his premises and disconnected the power supply to his factory. But, on perusal of the documents i.e. spot verification report, application of the complainant dated 27.02.2016 addressed to the Manager, Electrical, C.E.D, Balasore with reference to their letter No.588(3) dated 25.02.2016 so also his application dated 08.03.2016, as produced by the Ops, it is crystal clear that the complainant had unauthorizedly committed theft of electricity energy by-passing the meter cutting of three phases incoming cable and connected to the distribution box. Therefore, the Ops have provisionally made assessment.

                                         The Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in III (20213) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & others –v- Anis Ahmad have been pleased to observed that complaint against assessment made U/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. It is the Civil Court to sit upon the matter with respect to the decision of the assessing Officer. After notice of provisional assessment to the person alleged to have indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by an assessing Officer, who is a public servant, on the assessment of “unauthorized use of electricity” is a quasi-judicial decision and does not fall within the meaning of “consumer dispute” U/s 2(1)(e) of Consumer Protection Act. Offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted U/s 153 of Electricity Act, 2003, thus, also the complaint against any action taken U/s 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Section 173, 174 & 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot drive power to adjudicate a dispute relating to assessment made U/s 126 or offences U/s 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity” do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” as defined U/s 2(1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the present case, neither the complainant complied the assessment order made by the Ops nor knocked the door of the Appellate Authority. From the foregoing discussions, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.

                                         In the result, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed against the Ops. The interim order, if any, passed earlier against the Ops shall remain infructuous.