Orissa

Rayagada

CC/197/2016

Babaji Charala Martha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer Electrial South Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 197 / 2016.                                           Date.     11    .     5  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Babaji  Charan Martha,  S/O: Madan Mohan Martha, At/Po: Kutragada,    Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                                                                    …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Executive Engineer, SOUTH.CO., Electrical  Division,  Rayagada.

2. The Junior Engineer, SOUTH.CO.,Electrical  Section, Muniguda, Dist:Rayagada.            

.…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri B.P.  Panda, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps:- Sri  Ashish  Panda, Deputy Manager, (Legal) Rayagada.

.

.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non revision  of provisional penal  bill  Under Section-126 of Electrical Act, 2003  bearing consumer No.3111027600283 for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

 

1)That the complainant is a consumer  of electricity to Huller Rice Mill  having connection  bearing consumer No.3111027600283 with connected load of 1.86 K.W.  It was alleged that the SOUTH. Co Vigilence Squard on Dt. 13.05.2016 got his Huller Rice mill  premises  inspected  by its team and subsequently  sent a notice to him on Dt. 20.5.2016. In the said notice  it  was alleged that the Enforcement team on inspection made on  Dt.13.5.2016 and  found that  the complainant was using  excess load  from 0.84 K.W. to  1.86 K.W. inter alia Meter tampered with tariff change.  The complainant  challenged  the provisional bill Dt. 20.5.2016  for Rs. 47,654.00  raised by the O.P. He prayed  direct the O.P. to  correct the bill  and withdraw the demand  notice  and to pay the costs.

       2)On being noticed  the Deputy  Manager(Legal), South.Co., Rayagada appeared in person before the  forum  and  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum.  The O.Ps   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps . Hence the O.Ps   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

3)On perusal of the record  we observed  there is no dispute  that the complainant is a consumer  and availed  service from the O.Ps   bearing consumer No.3111027600283 and paying  monthly consumption bills of  electricity.

The O.Ps in their written version para No.1  contended that the case is not maintainable before the forum and citated citations in their favour.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complaint petition under section  126 of the Electricity Act, 2003  is  maintainable under   C.P. Act?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2013(3) page No. 670 in  the case of U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. &  Others  Vrs. Anis Ahmad  where  in the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed “In case of unconsistency between  the  Electricity Act, 2003 and  the C.P.Act, 1986, the provisions of C.P.Act  will prevail, but  ipso facto it will not vest the  Consumer forum with the power to redress any dispute with  regard  to the matters which do not come within the  meaning of “Service” as defined  under  section 2(1)(O) or “complaint” as defined  under section 2(1)© of the C.P. Act, 1986. The actsof indulgence in “unauthorized use of electricity” by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section -126 of the  Electricity Act, 2003 neither has any  relationship  with  “unfair trade practice” or “restrictive trade practice” or “deficiency  in service”  nor does it  amounts to   hazardous services  by the licensee.  Such acts  of  “unauthorized use of electricity” has nothing  to do with charging  price in excess of the  price.  Therefore, acts of person in indulging in ‘unauthorized  use of electricity ‘ do not fall with the meaning of   “complaint” as we have noticed above and therefore, the   “complaint” against   assessment under section- 126 is not  maintainable  before the consumer forum. The commission has already noticed that the  offences referred to  in Section- 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special court  constituted under section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint  against any action taken under Sections-135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer  Forum. 

                Again it is held and reported inCPR -2013(3) page No.544 the Hon’ble  National Commission where in observed “ Complaint  concerning power theft and penality is not maintainable before Consumer Forum”.

 

            This  forum further observed on the question as to whether the electric connection , in question, was  commercial connection so as to determine whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning  of Section  2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986  ?

 

            It is admitted fact that the premises of  the complainant  in which he was running  Huller Rice Mill  having connection  bearing consumer No.3111027600283 with connected load of 1.86 K.W. During checking of the said meter the officers  of the O.P. found that the meter was tampered.   According to the O.Ps  it was a case of theft and penalty  of Rs.56,872/-  was imposed on the complainant. The complainant  filed department appeal against the  imposition of penalty and also approached  the District Forum. This forum found that the complainant was running Huller Rice Mill   and was having a commercial connection  at his premises. It was also found that at the time of checking  the meter was tampered.

       In this connection this forum perused the citation. It is held and reported in C.P.R 2011(2) P 194  the Hon’ble National  Commission where  in observed  “Where purpose  of electric connection was a commercial  purpose, namely, running Huller rice mill, Complainant  was held  to be not  a consumer  within the meaning  of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P.Act,1986  and complaint,  in  question  was held  not maintainable  before Consumer Forum.”

 
            In view of the order passed by the  Apex Court  the complaint filed in the present case before the forum  is not maintainable. Accordingly, without  going into the merits of the case, this forum dismiss  the above complaint petition  with liberty to the complainant to seek appropriate remedy available to him before the appropriate forum. To meet the ends of justice  the following order is passed.

 

ORDER

In resultant the complaint petition is    stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

            Further this  forum ordered  the OPs not to claim any amount   towards  final  order bill order Dt. 5.8.2016 a sum of Rs. 56,872/- as demanded  by them bearing consumer No. 3111027600283 and they can only claim the complainant the regular consumption bill  till finalization of the petition by the competent/appellate authority,  if the complainant prefers for any relief with in the period of limitation in the proper court of law having jurisdiction.

             “The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act “reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583  the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed .

Pronounced in open forum today on this       11^th.  day of  May,  2018 under the seal and signature of this forum.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

Member                                             Member.                                                 President