N THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint filed by Sri. H.P. Chandrashekar s/o. late Puttappa, aged 51 years, resident of Hebbale Village, Kushalnagar Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District with a prayer that he is not bound to pay electrical bill amount of Rs.62,817/- issued by opponents, the calculation made by the opponents is unscientific and direct the opponents not to disconnect electric supply to his RR No. KIP 67670.

2. The opponent No.1 is the Asst. Executive Engineer, CHESCOM Sub-Division, Kushalangar, Somwarpet Taluk, opponent no.2 the Executive Engineer, CHESC, Madikeri and opponent no.3 the Asst. Executive Engineer, Vigilance Cell, CESC.  The complainant is consumer of opponents with connection bearing RR  No.KIP 67670 and has been irrigating land Sy.No.2 and 1 /4 total measuring 4 acres situated within the limits of Halagote Village, Kushalnagar Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District with the help of borewell.   The opponents have supplied electricity at free of cost as per the Government Order and since 2013 the complainant has been using electricity at free of cost to irrigate his lands.

3. That on 31/10/2017 opponent no.3 gave visit to his land and issued bill for 7000 units alleging that he has used excess electricity unauthorisedly.  The opponent by imposing penalty asked him to pay a sum of Rs.62,817/- within three months from the date of receipt of notice.  Otherwise they would disconnect the electric supply to the pump set.  It is the case of complainant that the opponents have not imposed restriction for use of electricity every month since 2013 but suddenly gave visit to the land and issued alleged notice.  The opponents have not conducted mahazar  and on the say of neighboring land owner who is not having good terms with the complainant has issued bill  but the complainant is not obliged to pay the bill amount.  Hence this complaint.

4. The opponents appeared through their learned counsel and filed written statement admitting that that the complainant has taken connection to his pump set bearing RR No.KIP 67670 and said installation made in land Sy.No.2 and 4 situated within the limits of Halagote Village.  The Asst. Executive Engineer, working in Vigilance Cell has inspected the installation made in land Sy.No.2 and 4 of Halagote Village and during inspection made on 23/09/2017 came to know that the complainant was supplying water through his 5 HP pump set unauthorisedly to the neighboring land owners for irrigation purpose.  The act of complainant supplying water through his pump set by using electricity unauthorisedly to the neighboring land owners is against the provisions of tariff schedule, as such they prepared back billing and submitted report to the sub  division office situated at Kushalnagar.  On the basis of report submitted by the Vigilance Cell the opponents 1 and 2 have issued notice dated 31/10/2017 to make payment of Rs.62,817/- The Asst. Executive Engineer, Vigilance Cell at the time of inspection have recorded the statement adjoining the land owners and drew mahazar.  The opponents have issued notice for unauthorised use of electricity by the complainant as such there is no deficiency on the part of opponents.  The last contention of opponents is that the complainant would have preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority as provided under the Electricity Act as such the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

5. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked exhibits P1 to 8 documents.  On behalf of opponents one Somashekar s/o. Balasundaram, Executive Engineer, CESC, Madikeri filed their affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked exhibits R1 to R9 documents.

6. Perused the complaint, written statement, affidavits and documents produced by both the parties and the points that would arise for determination are as under ;

1. Whether the complainant proves that the act of opponents in issuing notice for Rs.62,817/- amounts deficiency in service?

2. What order?

7. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:- In the Negative
• Point No.2:- As per final order for the below

R E A S O N S

8. In this case there is no dispute with regard to supply of electricity by the opponents to RR No.KIP 67670 for irrigation of land Sy.No.2 and 4 situated within the limits of Halagote Village.  The complainant though disputed visiting land by the officers of Vigilance Cell of CHESCOM but he produced exhibit P1 notice dated 31/10/2017 issued by opponent No.1 and exhibit P2 reply given by him to the opponent no.1 on 28/11/2017.  Exhibit P7 is record of right of land Sy.No.2 of Halagote Village which stands in the name of complainant.  It is stated in exhibit P1 notice addressed to the complainant that on 23/09/2017 opponent no.3 gave visit to installation RR No. KIP 67670 and found that the complainant was unauthorisedly supplying water through his 5 HP pump set to the neighboring land owners.  The complainant gave exhibit P2 reply to opponent No.1 on 28/11/2017 on page No.3 stated that he was unaware of supply of water to the neighboring land owners amounts to offence as such he made agreement with neighboring land owners for supply of water through his pump set on 21/1/2016.  Exhibit P2 reply itself indicates that the complainant was supplying water to the neighboring land owners through his 5 HP pump set by using electricity supply to RR No. KIP 67670.  The opponent have produced exhibits R2 and R3 mahazars conducted by the Asst. Executive Engineer, Vigilance Cell in land Sy.No. 2 of the complainant for making inspection of RR No. KIP 67670 on 23/09/2017.  Further the Vigilance Cell Officer has recorded the statement of Subramanya H.P resident of Halagote Village.  In exhibit R4 and other person stated that the opponents officer has inspected the installation of complainant and during the inspection he told that the complainant has been supplying water through his pump set to the neighboring land owners Srinivas for the last four months.  Exhibit R5 report dated 25/09/2017 submitted by Vigilance Cell to opponent no.1 with regard to inspection made on 23/09/2017.  The documents produced by opponents and admission of the complainant in exhibit P2 reply notice prove that the complainant has supplied water through his 5 HP pump set to the adjoining land owners to raise irrigation crop.

9. Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 defines Consumer means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee  or the  Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.  The above definition says that the person whom electricity was supplied he should use for his own purpose and he is not permitted to use electricity for others.  In the case on hand the complainant in exhibit P2 reply notice addressed to the opponent no.3 admitted that he was supplying water to the adjoining land owners through his 5 HP pump set to which electric connection was made vide RR No.KIP 67670.  The admission made by the complainant in exhibit P2 and records produced by opponents marked at exhibits R2 to 4  establishes that the complainant was unauthorisedly using electricity to supply water to the adjoining land owners through his 5 HP pump set.

10.  In UP power Corporation Ltd. and others v/s Anis Ahmed III (2013) Consumer Protection Judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 2(1)(d)(g) and (o) of the Consumer Protection Act held that a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) may file a valid complaint in respect of supply of electrical or other energy, if the complaint contains allegations of unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice or there is defective goods; deficiency in service ; hazardous service or a price in excess of price fixed by or under any law etc.  It is further held under Sections 126,135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 that final order of assessment under Section 226 of Electricity Act , 2003, action taken under Section 135 to 140 of Act, 2003 after notice of provisional assessment to person indulged in unauthrised use of electricity, final decision by assessing officer, who is a public servant on assessment of “unauthorized use of electricity” is a “Quasi” judicial decision and does not fall within the meaning of consumer dispute.  Complaint against assessment made by Assessing Officer under Section 126, or against offence is committed under Section 134 to 140 of Act, 2003 not maintainable before Consumer Forum.  In the case on hand the opponents after making local inspection passed assessment order that the complainant was using electricity unauthorisedly.  The remedy was left open to challenge exhibit P1 notice dated 31/10/2017 to pay a sum of Rs.62,817/- by preferring appeal before the Appellate Authority as provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  Supreme Court held that in case of unauthorized use of electricity and notice is issued after passing assessment order such action cannot be challenged by filing complaint before the Consumer Forum.  Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Electricity Act and law laid down by the Apex Court in case of UP Power Corporation v/s Anis Ahmed (cited supra).  In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Mr. H.P. Chandrashekar s/o. late Puttappa, resident of Hebbale Village is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Furnish the copy of the order to the complainant and opponents at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 16^th day of FEBRUARY, 2019)

                                                  (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                      PRESIDENT 

                                                (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                        MEMBER