SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of illegal imposition and demand of arrear outstandings along with threat of disconnection of power supply are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complainant in ‘short’ reveals that Complaint is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing No. 01134036 and was paying electrical dues regularly as per his actual consumption. It is alleged that on dt. 29/05/2014 some officials of Ops arrived in the premises of the Complainant, physical verified when the Complainant was not present and the said officials prepared a false report and obtained the signature of Jayanti Satapathy without disclosing the fact. Ops after physical verification of the Complainant’s premises imposed a penal amount of Rs. 16,000/- and by giving threat of disconnection of power supply collected Rs. 8,000/-on dt. 19/08/14 and Rs. 3,000/- on dt. 5/11/14 and no receipts were granted on further payments. It is also alleged that Ops compelled the petitioner to install a new meter, though the existed meter was in O.K. condition and on compulsion, Complainant installed a new Genus meter bearing No.2822612. It is further alleged that even after installation of new meter, Ops are still pressing heard to collect the penal amount and obtained a signature in the commitment form and issued a disconnection Notice on dt. 5/2/2016 to pay the arrear outstanding dues. It is categorically stated that Complainant has no arrear outstanding dues and issue of disconnection ‘Notice’ is illegal and the said acts of the Ops give mental harassment to the Complainant and can be termed as deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice. Complainant preys this Forum seeking a direction to Ops to struck up the arrear outstanding dues and to stop the disconnection of power supply and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service further the cost may be awarded in favour of the Complainant.
3. Being noticed Ops- electricity authorities appeared into the dispute through their Ld. Counsel Mr. P.K.Samal and Associates filed Joint written statement into the dispute. Ops in their written statement challenge the maintainability of the Complaint on the provision of U/S 145 of I.E.Act, 2003 and by citing the decision of Honbl’e Appex Court in case of U.P. power Crop. And others vrs Anis Ahmed reported in O.L.R. 2014 (1) SC-68. In the factual aspect of the dispute, it is averred that Complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing No. 01134036. A physical verification of Complainant’s premises is conducted by CESU, authorities on dt. 29/5/2014 and the verifying officials found that Complainant is availing the power supply by illegal means by tampering the meter. The physical verification was conducted in the presence iof the Complainant’s wife, who put her signature in the physical verification Form. It is averred that basing on the physical verification the Assessing Officer U/S126 of I.E. Act-2003 assessed a penal amount of Rs. 26,072/-. The copy of physical verification report, provisional assessment and order of provisional assessment is filed into the case as Annexure-A to C. It is also averred that as per the provisions of I.E. Act-2003, when no objection is filed to provisional assessment, it is treated as final and the action of the Ops cannot be challenged before this Forum, U/S 174,175 of Electricity Act-2003.Ops in their written statement further averred that an arrear amount of Rs. 19,803/- is pending on the Complainant up to June-2017, and it is also stated that the Ops have not committed any deficiency in service rather acted in accordance with the law, accordingly the complaint deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. Heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the ops and case of the complainant on merit, perused the documents (Annexure A to C) filed by Ops, though as per the complaint document are listed but not filed into the dispute. The admitted facts of the case are that Complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No. 01134036. It is also an admitted fact that a physical verification was conducted in the Complainant’s premises on dt. 29/5/2014 and penal amount was imposed on the Complainant. Apart from the other allegations of the complainant, the admitted facts reveals and supported by the document Annexure-A, filed by Ops that a physical verification of complainant’s premises was conducted on dt. 29/5/2014 by the officials of Ops on the presence of complainant’s wife, who put her signature in the physical verification Form, accordingly a penal amount has been imposed. Though in the Complaint, petitioner disputes the knowledge of any physical verification and takes the plea that the officials of the Ops obtained the signature of his wife Jayanti Satapathy without explaining the contents of the report to her. The fact also reveals from the complaint petition that on imposition of penal amount of Rs. 16,000/-, Complainant has paid certain amounts under compulsion on different dates, further as per the averments in the Complaint itself, demand has been raised on account of suspected theft of energy. In the circumstances the crucial question to be decided by this Forum that whether the complaint is maintainable before the consumer Forum as challenged by the Ops in case of unauthorized use of electricity/theft of energy. It is the plea of the Ops that U/S 126 of I.E. Act-2003 and U/S145 of the I.E. Act, where there is allegation of theft of energy or unauthorized use of electricity, this Forum lacks the Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, in support of the plea Ops file decision of Honbl’e Apex Court in case of U.P. Power Corp. & others vrs Anis Ahemed, reported in O.L.R. 2014(1) SC-68, where Honbl’e Apex Court held that in case of theft of electricity consumer Forum has no Jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. Even for the shake of argument it is believed that the physical verification dtd. 29/5/2014 is disputed or can be best treated as ‘suspect of theft of energy’ in these circumstances also Foras lacks the Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per the decision of Honbl’e National Commission reported in case of Jodhapur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. vrs Mohit Computers & Electronics Ltd. reported on 2014(4) CPR-9 (NC) and in case of UHBVNL vrs Sashi Chander reported in 2014(4) CPR-10.
Accordingly, as per the position of law involved in the present dispute and without discussing the factor aspect of the dispute any more, it appears that, the Complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and Complainant-consumer may approach appropriate authority established under the statute to redress his grievances. The I.A. misc case No. 16/16, which arises out of the present C.C. Case was dropped on dt. 23/08/2017 with a direction to Ops not to take any coercive action against the complainant till disposal of the original complaint and now the Ops are free to take steps as per the provisions of law.
Having observations reflected above the Complaint is dismissed without any cost and liberty is given to Complainant to approach the appropriate authority under the law, if he likes to do so, within one month of receipt of this order, and Ops are here by directed not to disconnect the power supply to the Complainant’s premises till the period of filing of complaint before the appropriate authority by the Complainant.
Complaint is dismissed on merit against Ops without cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 30th day of October,2017
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
