The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Executive Engineer, Electrical, Basta, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O, Electrical, NESCO, Basta Sub-Division, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Junior Manager, Electrical, NESCO, Rajghat Section, Balasore.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.Ps vide Consumer No.KAD-1203 and A/C No.322106040217 and had paid electric bills up to February, 2015 on 30.03.2015. All of a sudden, the meter supplied by the O.Ps did not run, thereby the O.Ps supplied electric bill of minimum charges for March, 2015 of Rs.1,272/- (Rupees One thousand two hundred seventy two only), thus the Complainant had been to O.P No.2 and requested to install a new meter and to receive actual charges for March, 2015, where the O.P No.3 assured to install a new meter for actual energy charges and also suggested the Complainant that actual energy charges will be levied after due verification of load of house of the Complainant, as such the Complainant being harassed. In spite of repeated request of the Complainant, the O.Ps neither installed a new meter nor received actual charges from the Complainant till May, 2015, but the O.Ps supplied a wrong, frivolous electric bill of Rs.30,255/- (Rupees Thirty thousand two hundred fifty five) only on 25.06.2015, which the Complainant objected the said wrong electric bill before the O.Ps No.2 and 3 in various occasion as well as to install a new meter for rectification of the same in order to supply correct bill, but lastly on 01.09.2016, the O.P No.2 strictly refused demanding the said incorrect bill or else to disconnect the electricity supply, causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. Thus, the O.P No.2 failed to comply their own rule and regulation and also failed to supply the energy bill from July, 2015 till date demanding to pay the said erroneous bill, which is deficiency-in-service on the part of the O.Ps. The Complainant has prayed for installation of a new energy meter along with verification of bill dtd.25.06.2015 on the basis of unit consumption as per OERC rules.
3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, limitation as well as its cause of action. They have admitted that the squad Party on behalf of the O.Ps made spot verification over the meter installed in the premises of the Complainant on 29.04.2015 in presence of brother of the Complainant and found that the Complainant was using power supply by means of cutting service connection wire before meter unauthorisedly and connected the same outgoing side service connection wire, which is theft of unauthorized energy in the eye of Law. After verification and preparation of spot verification report, Rabindra Mohanty, brother of the Complainant was asked to put endorsement there in. But on refusal, provisional assessment was done as per provision and due notice was served upon him on 30.04.2015 to the tune of Rs.31,248/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand two hundred forty eight) only as token of opportunity to be heard. Finally, the provisional amount was reduced and final assessment was done by the assessing Officer for Rs.26,404/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand four hundred four) only on 22.05 2015 with acknowledgement of the Complainant too. Thus, the Complainant instead of invoking the proper Forum against the impugned final assessment order dtd.22.05.2015, such derogatory complaint is lodged before this Hon’ble Forum, which lacks jurisdiction under the latest provisions of Electricity Act and regulations, thereby no exemption of charged liability be entertained .
4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?
(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that though his meter was not functioning properly, a bill of minimum charge of Rs.1,272/- (Rupees One thousand two hundred seventy two only) was supplied to the Complainant for March, 2015. Thereafter, he requested the O.Ps to install a new meter and the O.P No.3 gave assurance to install a new meter. Then an illegal bill of Rs.30,255/- (Rupees Thirty thousand two hundred fifty five) only was generated and supplied to the Complainant and in spite of several requests, when the O.Ps did not settle the matter, the Complainant has been compelled to come to this Forum praying for installation of a new meter along with verification (for not mentioned as modification) of bill dtd.25.06.2015 on the basis of unit consumption as per OERC rules. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that after spot verification, where it was found that unauthorized use of electricity by cutting service connection wire before meter and connected the same outgoing side service connection, spot verification report was prepared and after that provisional assessment was made to the tune of Rs.31,248/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand two hundred forty eight) only. Accordingly, final assessment was made to the tune of Rs.26,404/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand four hundred four) only. So, when there is an assessment, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. In view of authority reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, where in 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 contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 18th day of October, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
