The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Junior Engineer, Electrical, Mathasahi Section, NESCO, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O, Electrical, Supply Sub-Division No.1, NESCO and O.P No.3 is the Executive Engineer, B.E.D, NESCO, Balia, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a bonafide Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No. B20086 and was paying electric bills regularly. But, the O.P No.2 has served the electric bill for the month of October-2014 on 16.11.2014 vide new A/c No.3211107020104 to the Complainant, where a sum of Rs.17,583/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred eighty three) only has been shown as adjusted amount including the actual consumption amounting to Rs.1,824/- (Rupees One thousand eight hundred twenty four) only and in total Rs.19,369/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand three hundred sixty nine) only has been shown to be paid by the Complainant. The said bill also reveals that there is no arrear against the Complainant. But, after receiving the defective bill, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P No.2 on 17.11.2014 requesting him to give the actual bill amount. But, after receiving the said legal notice, the O.P No.1 and 2 did not pay any heed to it, for which the Complainant again served another legal notice on 21.11.2014 to the O.P No.2 along with payment of actual electric bill consumed by him of Rs.1,824/- (Rupees One thousand eight hundred twenty four) only under A/c Payee cheque No.000303, dtd.21.11.2014 drawn in favour of the O.P No.3. Thereafter, the O.Ps have not intimated anything to the Complainant about the defective bill, rather the lineman of the O.P No.1 has threatened the Complainant to pay the adjusted amount of Rs.17,583/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred eighty three) only, otherwise, he will disconnect the electric supply to the house of the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for waiving out the entire adjusted amount of Rs.17,583/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred eighty three) only along with compensation and litigation cost. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps have further submitted that the verifying squad of the O.Ps verified the premises of the Complainant on 22.08.2014, where it was found that the meter was running slow by 46.89% and the Complainant was availing power supply unauthorisedly to the tune of 7.5 K.W load against his existing load of 4.5 K.W. Accordingly, a spot verification report was prepared and the same was duly signed by the Complainant and also served to him. Thereafter, basing on the spot verification report, the provisional assessment was made on 22.08.2014 for Rs.37,408/- (Rupees Thirty seven thousand four hundred eight) only and served to the Complainant vide letter No.1170 and accordingly, the same was finalized for an amount of Rs.17,583/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred eighty three) only and duly served to the Complainant. Moreover, when there is provision for appeal after final order made U/s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within 30 days of the said order for redressal of grievances (if any) by the Complainant to an appellate authority, but the Complainant without availing remedies available U/s.127 of I.E Act, 2003, has filed this case before this Forum, just to misguide the Forum. In addition, a “complaint” against the assessment made by Assessing Officer U/s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the offences committed U/s.135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. Hence, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                    4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination 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 ?

                    5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case. So, his pleading remains as it is. In his pleading, he has taken the plea that the O.P No.2 has served a defective electric bill for the month of October-2014 on 16.11.2014, where a sum of Rs.17,583/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred eighty three) only has been shown as adjusted amount including the actual consumption amounting to Rs.1,824/- (Rupees One thousand eight hundred twenty four) only and in total Rs.19,369/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand three hundred sixty nine) only has been shown to be paid by the Complainant. So, after receiving the defective bill, the Complainant sent legal notices to the O.P No.2 on 17.11.2014 and on 21.11.2014, but the O.P No.1 and 2 did not pay any heed to it. The Complainant also paid the actual electric bill consumed by him of Rs.1,824/- (Rupees One thousand eight hundred twenty four) only under A/c Payee cheque No.000303, dtd.21.11.2014 drawn in favour of the O.P No.3. Thereafter, the lineman of the O.P No.1 has threatened the Complainant to pay the adjusted amount of Rs.17,583/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred eighty three) only, otherwise, he will disconnect the electric supply to the house of the Complainant, for which the Complainant has filed this case praying for waiving out the entire adjusted amount of Rs.17,583/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred eighty three) only along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that on 22.08.2014, the O.Ps have verified the premises of the Complainant, where they have found that the Complainant was availing power supply unauthorisedly. Thus, a spot verification report was prepared and served to the Complainant. Thereafter, observing necessary formalities of Law, provisional assessment order was prepared on 22.08.2014 for Rs.37,408/- (Rupees Thirty seven thousand four hundred eight) only and also served to the Complainant. Accordingly, the same provisional assessment order was finalized for an amount of Rs.17,583/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred eighty three) only and also the same was served to the Complainant. But, the Complainant has neither complied the assessment order made by the O.Ps nor appealed before the appellate authority, rather filed this case in this Forum. So, when there is an assessment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. However, in view of the authority reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that complaint against assessment made U/s.126 or action taken against those committing offences U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003, held, is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. Civil Court’s jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect to the decision of assessing Officer U/s.126 or with respect to a decision of the appellate authority U/s.127 is barred U/s.145 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, it is clear that after notice of provisional assessment to the person alleged to have indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by an assessing officer, who is a public servant, on the assessment of ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ is a quasi-judicial decision and does not fall within the meaning of “consumer dispute” U/s. 2(1) (e) of Consumer Protection Act. Offences referred to in Sections-135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted U/s.153 of Electricity Act, 2003, hence, also the complaint against any action taken under Sections-135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section-3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections-173, 174 and 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made U/s.126, or offences U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity” do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” as defined U/s. 2(1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                    6. 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, this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum, 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 along with an application for condonation of delay, if desired/ required. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 11th day of December, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.