The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Executive Engineer, Electrical, Balia, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O, Electrical, Bahanaga and O.P No.3 is the Junior Engineer, Electrical, Soro Electrical Division, Soro, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.NB-51248 and new A/c No.42322202110. The Complainant received the electric bill on 22.03.2017 of Rs.20,595/- (Rupees Twenty thousand five hundred ninety five) only and went to the Office of the O.Ps on 01.02.2017 and 07.03.2017 and also filed written objection for correction of the electric bill, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it. The O.Ps on 05.04.2017 have disconnected the power supply to the premises of the Complainant without giving any prior notice, causing mental agony to the Complainant. Cause of action arose on 22.03.2017. The Complainant has prayed for rectification of electric bill along with compensation. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case though the Advocate for Complainant files hazira.

                    3. Sufficient opportunities were given to O.Ps No.1 and 3, but they have not appeared in this case. They are set ex-parte.

                    4. Though sufficient opportunities were given to O.P No.2, but he has not filed his written version within the statutory period. So, the written version filed by O.P No.2 is not accepted.

                    5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case. So, his pleading is his case. According to his pleading, the Complainant received the electric bill on 22.03.2017 for Rs.20,595/- (Rupees Twenty thousand five hundred ninety five) only and went to the Office of the O.Ps on 01.02.2017 and 07.03.2017 and also filed written objection for correction of the electric bill, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it. On 05.04.2017, the O.Ps have disconnected the power supply to the premises of the Complainant, which causes mental agony to the Complainant. So the Complainant has filed this case praying for rectification of electric bill along with compensation. On the other hand, the O.Ps No.1 and 3 are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. The Advocate for O.P No.2 has not filed his written version within the statutory period, for which the written version filed by O.P No.2 is not accepted. It has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.2 that this case is not maintainable before this Forum as it is a case U/s.126 of I.E Act-2003. The Advocate for O.P No.2 has also filed the spot verification report, provisional assessment order and final assessment order in this case. So, according to settled principle of law, when there is an assessment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. However, in view of the authority reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that complaint against assessment made U/s.126 or action taken against those committing offences U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003, held, is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. Civil Court’s jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect to the decision of assessing Officer U/s.126 or with respect to a decision of the appellate authority U/s.127 is barred U/s.145 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, it is clear that 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, hence, also the complaint against any action taken under Sections-135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section-3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections-173, 174 and 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation 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.

                    6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority along with an application for condonation of delay, if desired/ required. Hence, Ordered:-   

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against O.Ps No.1 and 3 and on contest against O.P No.2, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 26th day of April, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.