SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-

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

2.                 Complaint in brief reveals that complaint’s deceased father namely Sapani Routray was a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No.02120195, after death of Sapani Routray, Complainant is availing power supply in the same consumer number. Prior to filing of the present complaint, Complainant filed a C.C. Case No. 84/15 in this Forum, but to wrong impleading of parties withdrawn the case, and now with the present complaint. Complaint, further reveals that, Complainant is a poor farmer and his monthly energy consumption amounts to Rs. 70/- to Rs. 140/-. But, to Utter surprise of the Complainant, Ops served an energy bill to the tune of Rs. 30,354.65 in the month of October-2015 as an arrear out standings. According to Complainant the imposition of penal billing U/S 126 of I.E.Act-2003 is illegal, arbitrary and no opportunity was given to the Complainant to filed any show cause to challenge the said penal amount and the action of the Ops on imposition of penal amount gives mental agony, and in the complainant, it is prayed that a direction may be given to  waive         the penal bill by declaring the same as illegal erroneous and further prays for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony caused to the complainant for such illegal imposition of penal billing.

3.                   Being Noticed, Ops appeared through their ld. Counsel and filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the complaint U/S 145 of I.E.Act-2003 and by citing the decision of Honbl’e Apex Court in case of U.P. Power Corporation and others vs Anis Ahmed reported in O.L.R. 2014(1) SC-68. Ops in their written statement averred that, Complainant’s father was a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing No. 02120195 and  the premises of the Complainant was verified by CESU, authorities on dt. 17/8/2015 and find that the Complaint is availing power supply by adopting unauthorized means. The physical verification was conducted in the presence of the Complainant, who refused to sign the verification report. On the basis of physical verification report, the assessing Officer exercising the power conferred U/S 126 of I.E.Act-2003 passed a provisional assessment to the tune of Rs. 30,356/-. The copy of the PVR, provisional assessment and its order filed into the dispute as Annexure A to C. It is further averred that when the Complainant-Consumer does not file any objection within 7 days of provisional assessment order, same is treated as final assessment. It is further stated that U/S 174 and 175 of Electricity Act-2003, this Forum lacks the Jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint and the Complainant is an arrear outstanding of Rs. 30,802/- up to Feb-2017. Under the circumstances the Ops have not committed any deficiency in service and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

4.                Heard the arguments advanced by ld. Counsels for Ops and complainant himself who appeared and advanced their respective arguments, perused the Annexures and documents filed by the parties. It is an admitted fact that Complainant’s deceased father namely Sapani Routray was a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing No.- 02120195 and after death of Sapani Rout, Complainant is availing the power supply to the same premises. It is also admitted that an amount of Rs. 30,355/- has been imposed upto Oct-2015 on complainant U/S 126 of I.E. Act-2003.

                  It is revealed from the Annexure A to C, attested, (Xerox copies of Physical verification Report, particulars and provisional Assessment Notice) filed by Ops disclosed that imposition of penal amount is due to unauthorized use of electricity ‘ by Complainant in his premises’. Which was detected by the CESU, authorities on dt. 19/8/2015. But in the written statement the date of physical verification is mentioned as 17/8/2015 by the Ops. Accordingly, the Ops challenging the maintainability of the Complainant U/S of 145,174, 175 of the I.E. Act-2003, which prohibits this Forum  to adjudicate the dispute, which relates to ‘Unauthorized use of Electricity’ or ‘theft of electricity’ U/S 126, I.E. Act-2003, further the submission is supported by decision of Honbl’e Apex Court in case of U.P. Power Corporation and others vs Anis Ahmed . We, agree with the submission of Ld. Counsel for Ops and as per the provisions of I.E. Act, allegation of theft of energy is not maintainable before this Forum, even in case of ‘Suspect of theft of energy’. Honbl’e National Commission opined that, Forums lack the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as reported in Jodhapur Vidyut Nigam Ltd. vrs Mohit Computers Electronics Ltd. reported in 2014(4) CPR (NC). But in the instant dispute, Complainant during course of hearing apprised this Forum that the Ops have not served any copy of the provisional assessment Notice, by which he could not get the chance to file any show-cause to protest the illegal imposition of penal billing, and the acts of Ops are deficiency in service and the allegations in the complaint are well within the purview of this Forum.

                          Considering the submissions of Complainant, it is clear that ops have not produce any substantial proof that the provisional assessment Notice (Annexure-C) was duely served on the Complainant, by which the complainant lost an opportunity to file any show-cause which is his legal rights available under the statute. It can be treated as a deficiency in service in part of the Ops, we, make it clear that on the grounds of technicalities of ‘theft of energy’ U/S 126 of the I.E. Act, we are not going to interfere in the dispute. If the Complainant-consumer likes to challenge physical verification, he may take other legal options to redress his grievance and limitation of filing such grievances should not be bar for the same. However, considering the non-availability of filing any show-cause, we are of the considered view that, U/S 2(O) of the C.P.Act, 1986 the service rendered by the Ops are well within the purview of definition of ‘service’ and the Act empowers this Forum to adjudicate such disputes as per Sec.3 of C.P.Act in certain cases even on the existence of the special statue under I.E. Act, 2003. It is legal obligation of Ops to give a fair opportunity to the Complainant –consumer to hear the grievance on filing of the show-cause to the provisional Assessment by the complainant, if any. Complainant-Consumer has to file the show-cause on provisional assessment dt. 26/8/2015 before the appropriate authority within 7 days of receipt of this order. Ops on receipt of the show-cause decide the grievance as per the law and same to be completed within 15 days of receipt of the show-cause of the Complainant. The I.A. case No. 36/16 which arises out of the present C.C.Case is here by disposed of and Ops are restrained to take any corecive action against the Complainant till  the completion of time mentioned in the order for  finalizing the show-cause.

                     Accordingly,  the Complaint is disposed of without any cost.

        Pronounced in the open Court, this 23th Day of May, 2017.