Case No. 101/2023   

IN THE MATTER OF

 Mrs. Anisha Begum W/o Mohammad Hanif age about 56 years R/o Bhujpura Road, Near N.S. Tailer Dhobi wali Gali Koil Aligarh

                                           V/s

Executive Engineer Electricity Urban Distribution Division First, Lal Diggi Aligarh

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs:-

1. The op be directed to waive the arrear amount Rs. 52728.18 with interest if any as being factious, illegal and time ward.
2. The Op be directed to pay litigation expenses Rs.15000.

2.  Complainant has stated that she was sanctioned an electricity connection at her premises and she has been regularly making payment of bills and the electricity bill dated 5.2.2023 contains no arrear amount. There was no complaint against her for committing theft. There was no inspection of the premises made by the OP and no checking report was prepared at the site. Complainant or her representative never signed any checking report in connection with electricity theft.  There is no report substantiating the electricity theft or unauthorized use of electricity. No provisional assessment along with show cause notice was served on the complainant inviting her for hearing. The assessment was raised for Rs.52728.18 for the first time through electricity bill dated 6.4.2023 and it was raised as theft assessment which is fictitious and imaginary. The alleged arrear amount was never carried on in the electricity bills and the said amount was not under the process of continuous recovery since the date it became first due and is barred by time.      

3. Op has not admitted the facts regarding checking of the premises as stated by the complainant and has stated that the assessment of electricity theft was raised at Rs. 52728 and the provisional assessment was sent to the complainant on 26.5.2018 and the provisional bill became the final bill for making no objection by the complainant. The recovery of the amount is not time bard as was under the process of continuous recovery and the amount is recoverable within three years. The cause of action for filing the case arose on 5/2018 when the electricity bill was sent and the case was not filed within two years and is time barred.           
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op have also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. It is evident that the arrear amount Rs.52728/ was raised for the first time in the electricity bill dated 6.4.2023 and no show cause notice appears to have been given to the complainant as per clause 6.8(b) or clause 8.1(b) (iii) of the code to invite objections and to provide her opportunity of personal hearing. The alleged assessment also appears to have been hit by clause 6.15(b) of the code. Complainant has clearly stated about non-compliance of said provisions of law supported by her affidavit. Op has simply denied the pleadings regarding compliance of the said provisions of law and no specific version was made. No proof like checking report, postal receipt regarding sending the copy of checking report to the complainant or photography of affixing copy of checking report at the conspicuous part of the premises. There is no evidence of providing opportunity of personal hearing against the provisional assessment. There is no copy of postal receipt for sending the provisional assessment to the complainant. Complainant was not given opportunity of filing appeal against the final assessment for want of notice of personal hearing against the provisional assessment. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove the compliance of provisions of inspection. Complainant cannot be held liable for committing theft of electricity and the assessment raised on the basis of alleged theft is erroneous in law and is not sustainable. It is important to note that the assessment is said to have been raised on the basis of alleged inspection dated 4.5.2018 and it was not raised in the electricity bills up to 5.2.2023 and the demand was made thereafter in the electrify bill dated 6.4.2023. In the meanwhile no continuous recovery was made as there is no evidence of recovery during the said period. Thus the provisions of section 56.2 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with clause 6.15(b) of the U.P. electricity Supply Code, 2005 become applicable and the recovery of alleged amount is time barred. It is also clear that recovery was made through the bill dated 6.4.2023 and thus the cause of action arose for filing the complaint on 6.4.2023 and the complaint is within time. We are of the view that the recovery of alleged amount  Rs.52728 is bad in law and is not recoverable.

8. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
9. We hereby direct the Op not to recover the amount Rs. 52728.18 as being illegal and time barred. Op shall also pay to complainant Rs.10000 as litigation expenses.
10. Op shall comply with the direction within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.