The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Executive Engineer, Electrical, NESCO, Jaleswar, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O, Electrical, NESCO, Jaleswar, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the J.M (E), Electrical, NESCO, Jaleswar, Balasore.   

                2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the father of the Complainant namely Manmath Kamila is a bonafide Consumer bearing old Account No.E0-344/ New Account No.323111030170 since 1985 under OSEB, GRIDCO, NESCO then Govt. of Odisha, but at the time of taking charge by the O.Ps, the then Assessment Officer of O.P No.2 had made spot verification on 18.10.2012 at 11.05 A.M, advising father of the Complainant to change the mechanical meter and also illegally shown load of 4 K.W, followed by illegal assessment of Rs.9,233/- (Rupees Nine thousand two hundred thirty three) only vide memo No.978 (3), dtd.02.11.2012 giving an opportunity to file objection on 10.11.2012. The then Officer has withdrawn the said illegal assessment after filing of objection by the father of the Complainant. Again on 18.12.2015 at 11.50 A.M, the O.P No.3 made spot verification and the contents in the said memo No.2743, dtd.30.12.2015 on Col. 3(a), the condition S/C (sealed cover) is shown as OK, but tampering inside the meter. The O.P also demanded to pay Rs.9,233/- (Rupees Nine thousand two hundred thirty three) only (liability of 18.10.2012) to the father of the Complainant and also advising to install a new mechanical meter within 7 days of their aforesaid inspection. Thus, the Complainant requested O.P No.3 for exemption of such demand, but the O.P No.3 instead of solving the same has illegally served a letter on 04.01.2016 vide memo No.2743, dtd.30.12.2015, which relates to provisional assessment of penalty of Rs.1,05,980.16 ps. (Rupees One lakh five thousand nine hundred eighty and sixteen paisa) only. On receipt of such letter, the Complainant on behalf of his father made a written objection before O.P No.2 on 05.01.2016 with a prayer to waive out the illegal assessment for the year 2012 and 2015. But, the O.Ps supplied bill for Rs.6,108.32 ps. (Rupees Six thousand one hundred eight and thirty two paisa) only for 864 provisional units and Rs.12,217/- (Rupees Twelve thousand two hundred seventeen) only for 864 provisional units for the month of November-2015 and December-2015 respectively. Thus, the Complainant filed an application before P.I.O of O.P No.2 on 04.02.2016 through Regd. post with AD, thereby the O.Ps threatened to disconnect the electric supply, provided bill of Rs.12,217/- (Rupees Twelve thousand two hundred seventeen) only is paid by the father of the Complainant within seven days, for which the Complainant has approached this Forum for proper remedy. The Complainant has prayed for waiving out the aforesaid assessment of Rs.9,233/- (Rupees Nine thousand two hundred thirty three) only and Rs.1,05,980/- (Rupees One lakh five thousand nine hundred eighty and sixteen paisa) only including correction of provisional bill for November-2015 and December-2015 along with compensation and litigation cost.    

                  3. Though sufficient opportunities are given to the O.Ps, but they have not appeared in this case. So, the O.Ps are set ex-parte.

                  4. In order to substantiate his claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.Ps are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier and have not filed any documents in their support. Perused the documents filed. The Complainant did not take part in hearing on the date fixed. However, perused the case record and the case is to be decided on merit. On perusal of the case record, it is noticed that there is a spot verification by the O.Ps regarding use of 4 K.W load instead of 1 K.W load and then the spot verification report was prepared, in which the father of the Complainant has signed. Thereafter, observing all the necessary formalities of Law, the provisional assessment U/s.126(1) and 126(2) of Electricity Act, 2003 was prepared for unauthorized use of Electricity for an amount of Rs.9,233/- (Rupees Nine thousand two hundred thirty three) only, which was served to the Complainant vide letter No.978(3), dtd.02.11.2012. Both the copies of spot verification report and provisional assessment order have been filed by the Complainant, but he has not filed the copy of final assessment order. So, it shows that it is a case of U/s.126 of Electricity Act, 2003. So, when there is an assessment, this District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority 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, 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.

                  5. 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 the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.  

                      Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 12th day of December, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.