SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of illegal imposition of penal billing and disconnection of power supply are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant Sri Arun Kumar Mohapatra is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No.-01707856 was paying energy bills regularly basing upon the actual meter reading till date. It is alleged that Op no. 1&2 the Officers of CESU illegally enhanced the connected load from 1 KW to 3 KW even without giving any Notice. In the month of May 2010 Op No. 1&2 arbitrarily imposed a penal amount of Rs. 27,849/- for tampering of meter. On a settlement between the complainant and Ops complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- as full and final settlement of the dispute and accordingly Op No. 1&2 sealed and installed the meter vide P.V. No. 5033 dtd. 05.05.2010. It is also alleged that Ops issued a disconnection Notice on 10/2/2014 demanding a sun of Rs.16741/- as arrear outstanding dues. Ops without considering the grievance of the complainant and disconnected the power supply on 19/9/2014 through Op No.4. The Cause of action of the dispute arise on 19/10/2014 when the Op No.4 refused to restore the power supply, such acts of ops disconnected the power supply and on dt. 07.10.2014 when the Ops according to the complaint are deficiency on service for which this complainant before the Forum with prayer for direction of the forum to the Ops to reassess the load factor and reduced it to 1.5 KW instead of 3 KW along with Rs, 50,000/- as compensation.
3. Being noticed Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. P.K.Samal and Associates and on behalf of all the Ops. Op No.3 filed written version as per the MOU signed between CESU (Op No.1&2) and ENZEN Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd.(OP No.3&4). Hence the w/s filed into the dispute treat as the common and joint written statement on behalf of all the ops. In the written statement complainant challenges the maintainability of the complainant by stating that U/S 126,145,174 & 175. The Indian Electricity Act 2003 the present proceeding is not maintainable before the consumer Forum. Ops submitting the facts state that on 19.09.2014 when the Op Officials inspected the complainants premises found that complainant has by-passed his meter by adopting different methods, accordingly the assessment Officer reclassified the category of the complainant and directed to pay additional securities but till date complainant has not paid the amount. It is further stated that prior to the date of verification dtd. 19.09.2014, Complainant’s premises was inspected by the officials of (CESU on 31.05.2010 and found that complainant was availing power supply by tampering the meter and was using the connected load of 3KW against the contract demand of 1KW. The at that period complaint did not filed any objection before the assessment officer nor preferred any appeal before the authority. It is further stated that complainant has frosted this false case and taking advantage of the Interim order is not paying the electricity dues as such an arrear outstanding of Rs. 78,658/- is pending till April-2016. The complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost as the complaint bears no merit.
4. Heard, the submission of Ld. Counsel for Ops and case of the complainant on merit, perused the documents, Annexures and citations filed into the dispute. It is an admitted fact that complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing Consumer No- 01707856. It is also admitted fact that Ops inspected the complaint’s premises twice first in the month of May-2014, accordingly penal costs were imposed on the complainant. It appears from the allegations and counter allegation that the present dispute relates to U/S 126 of I.E. Act -2003 which is “ theft of energy” or “ suspected theft of energy”, Though the complainant disputes the allegation of “ theft of energy”. In the circumstance it will be lawful to discuss the position of law involved on the dispute as raised by ops. According to Ops consumer Forums lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a complainant as per the previous of I.E.Act 2003 and subsequent decissions of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission. It appears from the complaint written statement, and copy of physical verification report that the complainant premises has been impacted twice i.e, in the month of May 2010 and September-2014, and both the time it was detected that complainant is availing power supply by tampering the meter and accordingly penal charges are/were imposed after assessment. The allegation and its counter clearly reveals that present complaint relates to “theft energy” and as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court & Hon’ble National Commission in case of Jodhapur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.-vrs- Mohit Computers & Electronics reported in 2014(4) CPR9 (NC) and in case of UHBVNL- vrs- Sashi Chander reported in 2014(4) CPR (NC) Hon’ble National Commission opined that in case of “theft of energy’ even “ on account of suspected theft of energy” the Consumer forums has no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant as the complainant is not maintainable before the consumer Forum. As per the position of law discussed above the complaint relates to theft of energy and accordingly a penal charges has been imposed on the complainant-consumer and as per the observation the complainant is not maintainable and we do not want to discuss in detail on factual aspect as no relief can be provided to the complainant.Equally, we can not interfere in the imposition of penal billing for above legal barriers. The complainant has to approach the designated authorities for redressal of his grievance, if any. The case record reveals that Forum directed vide order No.2 dt. 10.10.2014 to restore power supply to the complainant’s premises subject to certain conditions. The order is hereby vacated as per the observation of the original C.C. case No. 44/14.
Having observations reflected above the complainant is dispose of with the suggestion that if the complainant wants raise the dispute, he may approach appropriate authority established under I.E. Act-2003. One month time is given to the complainant from date of receipt of the order to raise his grievance before appropriate authority, till then Ops are hereby restrained to take any coercive action against the complainant consumer.
Accordingly the complaint is disposed of.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 29th day of September,2016.
