Orissa

Kendrapara

CC/49/2015

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer-cum-Manager(Elect.) - Opp.Party(s)

Gobardhana Rout

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
KENDRAPARA, ODISHA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/49/2015
 
1. Ramesh Chandra Sahoo
S/o- Late Dhurba Charan Sahoo At-Patakura Po- Bhagabatpur
Kendrapara
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Executive Engineer-cum-Manager(Elect.)
Ked No.1, CESU At/Po/Dist-kendrapara
Odisha
2. Accessing Officer,Enzen Global Solution Pvt.Ltd.
Kendrapara No.11 At/Po/Dist-Kendrapara
Odisha
3. Junior Engineer,Danpur Electrical Section
At/Po-Danpur
Kendrapara
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sri B.K. Das PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. sri Nayananda Das MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Rajashree Agarwalla MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Gobardhana Rout, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: P.K.Samal & Associate, Advocate
Dated : 10 Feb 2017
Final Order / Judgement

SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-

             Deficiency in service in respect of providing inflated energy bill and illegal assessment are the allegations arrayed against ops.

2.                 Complaint in brief reveals that complainant is a domestic category of consumer of Electricity under Ops, bearing consumer No.01169166.  It is alleged that on 19/06/2015 Op no.2 along with their other staffs went to the house of the complainant and in the absence of the complainant verified the meter and unilaterally opined that HRG meter position has been transferred and without any Notice sent a letter enhancing the load factor from 1.5 k.w, to 3 k.w. accordingly imposed amount of Rs. 46,565 calculating from 2012-13 to 2015-16. Complaint also challenges the legality of the assessment and threat of disconnection of electricity by the Ops. The cause of action of the instant case arose on 22/06/2015 when the complainant received the provisional assessment and forced the complainant to file complaint with prayer that a direction may be given to Ops to declare the assessment Notice illegal and to deduct the entire amount as per the Notice and not to disconnect the power supply to the complainant’s premises.

3.                   Upon Noticed Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. P.K.Samal and associates and filed joint written statement into the dispute denying the allegations and challenging the maintainability of the complaint under I.E.Act-2003 by citing decision of Honbl’e Apex Court. Ops on the facts of the case state that complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No.-01169199. It is averred that on 17/06/2015 CESU authorities physically verified the complainants premises and the physical verification report reveals that complainant is availing power supply by tampering the meter adopting artificial means. As the consumer interfered with meter mechanism the connected load was enhanced from 1.5 K.W. to 3 K.W. and the physical verification was conducted in the presence of the complainant who refused to put his signature. The Assessing Officer assessing the enhanced load factor conferred to him U/S 126 of I.E. Act-2003 imposed a fine of Rs. 46,565.86. The copy of the PVR and provisional assessment is filed into the dispute as Annexure-A & B. It is further stated that as per the provisions if there is any objection to the physical verification and provisional assessment consumer has the right to file objection within 7 days before the Ops on personal hearing, if consumer fails to protest within 7 days the assessment amount will be treated as final. The written statement also reveals that U/S 174, 175 of I.E. Act-2003 and as per the decision of Honbl’e Apex Court in up power Corporation and other vs Anish Ahamed, this Forum lacks the jurisdiction to entertain any complaint which relates to unauthorized use of electricity or theft of energy and it is prayed that on the above circumstance the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to dismissed with exemplary cost.

 4.            Heard, the submissions of by Ld. Counsel for the Ops and case of the Complainant on merit, perused the documents as per the list and written notes argument filed by complainant and Annexures filed by Ops. It is an admitted fact that complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No.- 01169166. It is also admitted that a physical verification was conducted in the complainant’s premises on 19/06/2015 and as per the provisional assessment a fine amount of Rs. 46,565.86 was imposed which is reflected in the energy bill of the complainant.

                     It is quite clear that complaint is filed alleging illegal conduct of physical verifications and provisional assessment by Ops where an amount of Rs. 46,565.86 has been imposed as penalty. On the other hand Ops challenge the maintainability of the complaint on grounds that as per the provisions under I.E.Act-2003 and the decision of the Honbl’e Apex Court in case of up power Corporation and others Vrs Anis Ahmed reported in 2014(1) Sec-68, the consumer Foras lacks the jurisdiction to entertain any complaint of unauthorized use of electricity or theft of energy. During pendency of the proceeding complainant filed a copy of the order bearing consumer complaint No.-28/2008 of this Forum filed by complainant earlier having similar allegations. The C.C. Case No. 28/2008 was disposed of this Forum by partly allowing the Complaint as maintainable and certain directions were issued to the Ops. With due respect to our Ld. Predecessors, we are of the opinion that Honbl’e Apex Court and Honbl’e National Commission recently in catena of decisions opined that in case of unauthorized use of electricity or theft of energy and as per the provisions of I.E. Act-2003 consumer Forum’s lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Honbl’e national Commission going a step forward opined that even in case of ‘suspect of theft energy” the consumer Forum has no power to adjudicate the same and as per the provisions U/S 143(1) I.E. Act-2003 remedy is available before the appropriate authority constituted by the Government. We rely on the decision of Honbl’e National Commission in case of Jodhapur Vidyut Nigam Ltd. vrs Mohit Computers & Electronic reported in 2014(4) CPR9(NC) and in case of UHBVNL vs Sarhichander reported in 2014 (4) CPR NC.

                        In the position of law involved in the dispute we are of the unanimous view that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, if complainant wants to redress his grievance he has to approach the appropriate authority established under the I.E.Act-2003. Further limitation for filing the complaint before the appropriate Authority is not a legal bar as the matter was pending before this Forum. One month time is given to complainant from the date of receipt of the order to approach the authority, if he desires to do so, till then Ops are here by restrained to take any coercive action against the complainant. The I.A. case no.21/2015 is hereby vacated subject to compliance of our observation.

                            Accordingly, the Complaint is disposed of without any cost.

        Pronounced in the open Court, this 10th Day of February, 2017.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri B.K. Das]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. sri Nayananda Das]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Rajashree Agarwalla]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.