MR. NAYANANANDA DASH,MEMBER -
Deficiency in service in respect of serving illegal and arbitrary energy bills with threat of disconnection of power supply are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint, ‘in short’ reveals that, Complainant’s deceased father namely Sapani Ch. Sahoo was a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing old consumer No-D17N10 and new A/C No. 02138028. After death of his father Complainant was enjoying the power supply with a contract demand of 2.5 K.W. and was paying monthly energy dues regularly up to Dec-2015, as per the meter reading. On Dt. 19/01/2016 Ops served a wrong energy bill amounting of Rs. 9880/- along with previous charges as arrear Rs. 40,301/- in toto the bill amount was for Rs. 51,892/-, and the monthly energy bills reflected the ‘meter’ of the Complainant as defective and bills are prepared on average consumption basis. It is also revealed from the complaint petition that on dt. 25/01/2016, Ops issued a Notice showing an arrear amount of Rs. 9880/- according as same day Complainant deposited Rs. 6,000/- and Ops collected Rs. 150/- as reconnection charge on compelling circumstances though power supply has not disconnected to the Complainant’s premises. Complainant being aggrieved on erroneous imposition of arrear amount of Rs. 40,301/- met the official of Ops, who did not co-operate the complainant regarding his grievance, rather obtained the signature of the Complainant on a ‘commitment Form’ showing an arrear outstanding of Rs. 51,891/-. Complainant alleges the action of the Ops in preparation of energy bills are deficiency is service of Ops, and cause of action of the instant case arose on dt. 19/01/2016 and on dt. 25/01/2016 and lastly on dt. 5/2/2016,when the Ops threatened to disconnect the power supply. Complainant preys before this Forum that a direction may be given to Ops to regularize the energy bills and to waive the illegal demand of Rs. 40,301/- with reconnection charge of Rs. 150/- and not to disconnectthe power supply to the Complainant’s premises. It is further prayed that Complainant be directed to Pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment finance loss and mental agony.
3. Being Noticed Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed joint written statement into the dispute and averred that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum U/S 145 of the Electricity Act- 2003 and cited the decision of Honble’ Apex court on the case of U.P. Power Corporation and others –vs-Anis Ahmed. reported in O.L.R. 2014(1) Sc-68. In the written statement it is also averred that Complainant’s deceased father Sapani Ch. Sahoo is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing No. 02138028. On dt. 17/12/2015, the CESU. Authorities physically verified the installation of Complainant’s premises and found that Complainant was availing power supply by artificial means, by-passing the power supply and the physical verification was conducted in the presence of the Complainant, who refused to put his signature in the physical verification Form, accordingly the Assessment Officer, Power conferred U/S 126of I.E.Act-2003 provisionally assessed the penal amount. It is further stated that, if the consumer within seven days of provisional assessment document treated as final assessment and an arrear outstanding of Rs. 73,605/- is pending on the Complainant upto July-2017. It is averred that U/S 174,175 of I.E.Act-2003 and in the decision of Honbl’e Apex Court the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties perused the documents i.e, photocopy of physical verification report, provisional assessment, consumer billing statement filed by Ops and documents filed by Complainant as per the list and written notes on argument. The admitted facts of the case are that Complainant’s deceased father namely Sapani Ch. Sahoo is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing No. 02138028. The dispute relates to imposition of penal billing amounting of Rs. 40,300/- in the month of Dec-2015.
It is the case of the complainant that, till Dec-2015, he was paying the monthly energy dues regularly as per the meter reading, but all on a sudden, on the month of January-2016, the monthly energy bills reflect an arrear outstanding of Rs. 51,890/-. It is further case of the Complainant that, Ops on dt. 25/01/2016 served a notice U/S 56(1) of the I.E. Act-2003 showing an arrear outstanding of Rs. 9881/- and on advise of Ops, Complainant paid Rs. 6000/- vide M.R. No. 028161 and reconnection charge Rs. 150/-, though no power supply has been disconnected. It is also the case of the Complainant that Ops by force obtained a signature of the Complaint on a ‘commitment Form’ showing an amount of Rs. 51,891/- as an arrear outstanding dues. On the other hand Ops service provider’s cases are that on verification of premises of the Complainant by the authorities, on dt. 17/12/2015. It is found that, Complainant is availing power supply by artificial means by-passing the electric line, according the Assessing Officer, power conferred U/S 126 of I.E.Act-2003 passed a provisional assessment order to the tune of Rs. 40,301/-. In support of the same Ops filed the Xerox copy of the physical verification report and provisional assessment order into the dispute.
Complainant on the present proceeding challenged the documents of physical verification and preparation of provisional assessment order filed by Ops by citing different decisions of Honbl’e Apex Court and Honbl’e State C.D.R. Commission, ODISHA. The challenge of the Complainant relates to production of photocopy of the physical verification report filed by Ops, accordingly to complainant the said physical verification report does not carry a signature of the consumer and Photostat copies can’t be relied in the instance of the observation of the Honbl’e Courts for just decision of a dispute.
Now, from the document presented before this Forum, it appears that in connection to raising of abnormal billing, it relates to either unauthorized use of electricity or suspected theft of energy.
In the dispute Ops challenged the maintainability of the complainant U/S 145 of the electricity act-2003 and reported by a decision Honbl’e Apex Court in case of UP Power Corp. & others –Vs- Anis Ahmed reported in O.L.R. 2014(1) Sc-68. In the cited decision Honbl’e Apex Court, opined that in the allegation of theft of energy consumer Forum lacks to entertain the Complaint, and the aggrieved parties may approach to appropriate authority established under the Statute. Honbl’e National C.D.R. Commission in case of Jodhapur Vidyut Nigam Ltd. -vrs- Mohit Computers and Electronics, report on 2014(4) CPR.9 (NC) and in case of UHBUNL –vs- Sashichander reported in 2014(4)CPRNC, where Honbl’e National Commission opined that even in case of ‘suspect of theft of energy’ consumer Forum lacks the jurisdiction to entertain any complaint U/S 126 of I.E.Act-2003. On the cited decisions, it is quite clear that the present allegations is fall within the category of ‘theft of energy’ or ‘suspected theft of energy’ for which this Forum lacks the Jurisdiction.
Equally, it is appears that the preparation of billing in the month of January-2016 and service of Notice dt. 25/01/2016, conduct of physical verification dt. 17/12/2015 and service of provisional assessment order are inconsistent and not according to the provisions of O.E.R.C.-code-2004 (as awarded upto 2011). However, on observation made above on ground of maintainability. This Forum lacks the Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the circumstances.
Having observation reflected above, the Complaint is dismissed on grounds of maintainability without any cost and complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate authority established under the statute.
Accordingly, the Complaint is disposed of.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 8th day of November, 2017.
I, agree I,agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
