The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the J.E/ J.M, Electrical, NESCO, Rupsa, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the E.E, At- Office of E.E, Balia, Balasore.

                    2. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant, being the Proprietor of "Sanjay Infotech" (a Computer Institution) is a Consumer under the O.Ps vide Consumer No.BR-101639 (Commercial category) and the Complainant pays the electric bill regularly. But, on 11.08.2014, while the institute was closed, the O.Ps illegally inspected alleging installation of A.C in the institute, thus assessed for Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand) only illegally and also disconnected power supply to the institute of the Complainant. Since the alleged unit was closed, no staffs were present and no A.C was installed in the institute, so the inspecting Officer has never inspected the said institute of the Complainant, thus the report made by them is false, baseless and forged one, which is prepared by them to harass the Complainant. The Complainant sustained irreparable loss due to non-supply of electricity to the institute, thus the Complainant ran from pillar to post to revise the order and illegal energy bill, but the O.Ps paid no heed to the request of the Complainant, thus the Complainant suffered mental agony and was harassed by the O.Ps. The Complainant has prayed for reconnection of electric supply to the institute and exonerating the bills passed provisionally along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

                    3. Though the O.P No.1 appeared in the case, but did not file his written version. So, the O.P No.1 is set ex-parte.

                    4. The O.P No.2 has filed his written version through their Advocate, where he has denied on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.2 has further submitted that Sanjay Infotech (a Computer Institution), C/o. Sanjay Kumar Giri is a general purpose Consumer having 1 K.W load vide Consumer No.BR-101639 (Com) Computer Account No.324223032039 at Podadiha under Rupsa section. The Consumer has executed agreement with NESCO during June, 2012 on 26.12.2008, which is in force as per prevailing regulation. During the spot verification of premises of Sanjay Kumar Giri, the O.Ps found that the Complainant was availing power supply unauthorizedly to his Computer Institution by means of direct by cutting from service connection wire, which is totally bypassing the installed meter No.5310754, meter make- Secure. Accordingly, the same interference has been booked under 126 of Electricity Act-2003 and Rule-46 of OERC (Conditions of Supply) Code-2004 and Provisional Assessment order is made U/s.126 of Electricity Act-2003 on the basis of SVR dt.11.08.2014 assessing to Rs.67,854/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand eight hundred fifty four) only, which is issued in favour of the Complainant on 23.08.2014, giving an opportunity of being heard on 09.09.2014, but the Complainant did not turn up, thus final assessment order for Rs.67,854/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand eight hundred fifty four) only was issued vide letter dt.16.09.2014. The Consumer is availing power supply of 2.13 K.W as against permitted load of 1 K.W on the basis of spot verification report.

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?   

                    6. In order to substantiate their pleas, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that an illegal amount of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand) only has been imposed against him having no fault with him, for which he has filed this case in this Forum praying for waiving out the illegal bills along with compensation. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that it is a case of U/s.126 of Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorized use of electricity and accordingly, after spot verification, provisional assessment has been made and after giving scope to the Complainant, final assessment has been prepared. Perused the documents like spot verification report, provisional assessment order and final assessment order, which are available in the case record vide Annexure-A, Annexure-B and Annexure-C respectively. So, this case is not maintainable before this Forum and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority as per U/s.127 of Electricity Act, 2003. But, on spot verification report, signature of the Complainant is available, which is a short signature, but no short signature of Complainant is available in the case record to compare it. So, without any adverse evidence, it is treated to be signature of the Complainant. The provisional assessment order and final assessment order do not disclose about the supply of these documents to the Complainant as no such detailed particulars are available in the case record. According to Section-171 of Electricity Act, 2003, practice adopted for service of notices, orders or documents have been mentioned. In case of provisional assessment and final assessment, such provisional assessment is not duly complied by the O.Ps. Nowhere we found that the claim of the Complainant for the illegal bill is Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand) only rather in the Provisional assessment order as well as Final assessment order, it amounting to Rs.67,854/- (Rupees Sixty Seven thousand eight hundred fifty four) only. So, it shows that the Complainant is not sure about the demand against him. However, in the Authority reported in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 in the case of U.P Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, where in it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the acts of indulgence in “unauthorized use of Electricity” as defined U/s.126 of Electricity Act, 2003 do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” as defined U/s. 2(1)(c) of the C.P Act, 1986. It has been also held that in case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of C.P Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined U/s. 2(1)(o) or “complaint” as defined U/s.2 (1)(c) of the C.P Act, 1986. A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer U/s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. The Electricity Act, 2003 and the C.P Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" U/s. 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”. In this case, there is no question of unfair trade practice found against the O.Ps or deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.          

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, now this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum and there is no cause of action to file this case, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority as per U/s.127 of Electricity Act, 2003 for relief, if desired. Hence, Ordered:-   

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against O.P No.1 and on contest against O.P No.2, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 18th day of September, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.