DATE OF FILING-6.3.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL- 3.7.2014
O R D E R
Miss S.L.Pattnaik,President
It is the case of the complainant that Smt.Kunjalata Mahapatra is a widow and she is also a Consumer of Opposite Parties for availing electricity bearing Consumer Account No.3414-0132-0017 under Bijipur Section, BED-I Division of Brahmapur Supply Sub-Division, Bijipur. Due to her sickness, the case is represented through Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Mohanty S/o.Late Brikrushna Mohanty duly authorized by her,
2- The complainant alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 entered into the premises of the complainant in absence of any male member for inspection and inspected the premises and drawn a frivolous report like details of meter inspection and load census bearing No.5832 dt.5.2.2013 and collected the signature of one Rehena who was present at that time. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 raised bill under provisional assessment for the period from February,2011 to January,2013 to an amount of Rs.86,209/-(Rupees eighty six thousand two hundred nine) and demanded for payment of the same . The complainant protested to such arbitrary and illegal action of the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 23.2.2013, but no fruitful result was forthcoming and the Opposite Parties remained callous in the matter by threatening for disconnection of the electricity connection in case of non-deposit of the assessment amount. Finding no way out, the complainant has come forward with this consumer complaint alleging arbitrary and illogical bill as well as negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed for quashing such bill raised by the Opposite Parties with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.8,000/- for the harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant during the relevant period of time. In support of its case, the complainant has filed certain documents which are marked as Annexure-1 to 7 respectively.
2- The Opposite Parties put in their appearance through learned counsel and filed the written version jointly wherein they have resisted the allegations and claim of the complainant. It raised objection on the maintainability of the case due to filing of the instant case by one Sanjeeb Kumar Mohanty in absence of any power of attorney as per law. It is further submitted that on 5.2.2013 at about 11.A.M. the Vigilance squad of Southco giving their official identity had inspected the premises of the consumer and checked her meter bearing No.341401320017 in presence of her and her family members. During checking they detected that the power supply was availed by her through tampered meter, tampering its box seal and T.C.seal. Meter was also running slow by
(-)80.59%. Instantly, the report was prepared and due to her inability to sign, the signature of her tenant namely Rehena was obtained and a copy was served to her. Basing on the same report, a provisional assessment order under Section 126(1) of the Electricity Act was prepared by assessing Rs.86,209/- in favour of the consumer. The same order was supplied to the complainant on 19.2.2013 through her representative viz.Rehena as per their letter No.13/53 Dt.119.2.2013 as required under the above Act. Subsequently, the consumer did neither appear nor filed any objection to such provisional assessment order and avoided to make payment of assessment amount. It is, therefore, contended by Opposite Parties that there is no deficiency of service on their part and this dispute is not coming under the purview of the C.P.Act,1986 for which it is likely to be dismissed. In support of its case it has cited a verdict of the Hon’ble State Commission, Odisha in Revision Petition No.19/2012 passed on 9.2.2012 held that “ the District Forum or the Consumer Fora are not empowered to interfere with the matters relating to unauthorized use of electricity” It further highlighted the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8859 of 2011 in the case of Seetaram Rice Mill Vrs. Executive Engineer, Jeypore Elect.Division wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Consumer Forum has lacks jurisdiction to entertain the dispute where a statutory remedy is provided under a specific law.
3- On the date of hearing learned counsels for the respective parties were present. Heard the learned counsel at a length and perused the case record in detail. We have also gone through the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties. It is the case that Smt.Kunjalata Mahapatra is the consumer under the Opposite Parties having Consumer No.3414-0132-0017. It is the allegation of the complainant that the Opposite Parties have issued disproportionate bill by imposing unjustified cost on the complainant by assessing illegally since there was no such reason to justify for assessment to her premises. It is also argued that the Opposite Parties did not give prior intimation and entered the premises forcibly and Opposite Party No.1 is not being authorized to inspect the meter of the complainant under Sec.126(1) of the Electricity Act,2003. It is also argued that Opp.Party No.2 has prepared the assessment order in contravention to the Regulation 52 of the O.E.R.C Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code,2004. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that the dispute of the complainant is coming under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and, therefore, a complaint against the assessment made by the Assessing Officer or the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act,2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and prayed for dismissal in limine. In this respect he has also filed a memo of citation in the case of U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & others Vrs. Anis Ahmad(AIR-2013(S.C)-2766 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,New Delhi.
4- Thus, before averting to the merit of the case, we must justify as to whether the present consumer complaint at hand is maintainable before this Forum or not?
5- It is a fact that the Opposite Parties had inspected the premises of the complainant on 5.2.2013 and checked the meter bearing Consumer No.7-B-2/69(341401320017) in presence of family members of the consumer. During checking it was detected that the meter was tampered and running 80.59% slow. Instantly a report was prepared and handed over a copy to the tenant of the complainant viz.Rehena. Thereafter, basing on the report, a provisional assessment order under Section 126)\(1) of the Electricity Act assessing Rs.86,209/- for 81% units was imposed against the complainant and served her for payment of the bill. On receipt of such notice the consumer had not challenged the assessment order. Subsequently, the complainant has filed this case for redressal of her grievance.
6- From the above facts of the case, we are clear that this is a dispute before us challenging the Provisional Assessment Order under Sec.126 (1) of the Electricity Act made by Opposite Parties. For better appreciation of the case, we refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd and Others Vrs. Anis Ahmad(2014(1)OLR(SC)-68 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has clearly clarified and held that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute filed by a consumer or any person against the assessment made under Sec.126 of the Electricity Act,2003 or action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Act,2003.
7- In view of the above, we hold that this is the complaint challenging the Assessment Order made under Sec.126 of the Electricity Act by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, considering the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as stated above, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant consumer complaint of the complainant. Hence, the present consumer complaint deserves no merit and stands dismissed without any order as to cost.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 3rd day of July,2014.
I AGREE(MEMBER) I AGREE(MEMBER) PRESIDENT
(Dr.N.Tuna Sahu) (Mrs.M.Pradhan) (Miss S..L.Pattnaik)
