The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Junior Engineer, Electrical, NESCO, Balikhanda Division, Balikhanda, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O, Electrical, NESCO, Markona, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Executive Engineer, Electrical, NESCO, S.E.D, Soro, Balasore.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a domestic Consumer under the O.Ps vide Consumer No.SM-36921 and paying the electric bill till date as per consumption. But, during June-2015, the O.Ps supplied the bill on the basis of consumption i.e. (for May-2015-7812 units and June-2015-7913 units), thus consuming 101 units for that month, but bill for Rs.9,053.77 ps. (Rupees Nine thousand fifty three and seventy seven paisa) only was supplied to the Complainant by the O.Ps. Thereafter the Complainant requested the O.Ps to correct the bill, but till date no result. Without going to the Complainant’s house, the O.Ps have imposed the said amount, which is quite illegal, unauthorized, imaginary, whimsical and arbitrary as per Law, where the Complainant has not committed any fault. Such type of activities committed by the O.Ps amount to deficiency-in-service and cause of action arose on 31.08.2015, when the O.Ps threatened to disconnect the electric line, provided the Complainant cleared the entire electric bills, imposed illegally upon him within 7 days, thus filed this case against the O.Ps for their deficiency-in-service along with causing financial loss and mental agony. The Complainant has prayed for correction of bill along with compensation for mental agony, financial loss and litigation cost.
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 premises of the Complainant vide Consumer No.SM-36921 was verified by the verification team of the O.Ps on dtd.02.04.2015, where it was found that the Complainant was availing power supply unauthorisedly to one water pump by means of extra hooking from nearest L.T bare conductor. Hence, penalty imposed U/s.126 of I.E Act, 2003 and hooking wire was seized on the spot, where the Complainant refused to sign on spot verification report, though he was present. Basing on the spot verification report dtd.02.04.2015, the provisional assessment was made on dtd.03.04.2015 amounting Rs.8,661/- (Rupees Eight thousand six hundred sixty one) only and the final assessment order has been made vide letter No.275 (3), on dtd.06.05.2015 amounting Rs.8,661/- (Rupees Eight thousand six hundred sixty one) only, which is a clear case of U/s.126 of I.E Act, 2003. Moreover, a “complaint” against the assessment made by Assessing Officer U/s.126 or against offences committed U/s.135 to 140 of the I.E Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.
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. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that during June-2015, the O.Ps supplied the bill for consuming 101 units for that month, but bill for Rs.9,053.77 ps. (Rupees Nine thousand fifty three and seventy seven paisa) only was supplied to the Complainant by the O.Ps. Thereafter, the Complainant requested the O.Ps to correct the bill, but till date no result. The O.Ps have imposed the said amount without going to the Complainant’s house, which is illegal, unauthorized, imaginary, whimsical and arbitrary as per Law and this type of activities amounts to deficiency-in-service on the part of the O.Ps. The O.Ps threatened to disconnect the electric line, if the Complainant has not cleared the entire electric bills imposed illegally upon him within 7 days, for which the Complainant has filed this case in the Forum praying for correction of bill along with compensation and litigation cost. In support of his argument, the Advocate for Complainant has relied upon the Authority reported in III (2015) CPJ-402 (NC) in the case of Ashok Ojha (Vrs.) Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors., where in it has been held by the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi that when respondent JSEB did not choose to send any notice to Petitioner for offences U/s.126 of U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 either with respect to ‘unauthorized use’, “pilferage” or “theft” and in absence of any such assessment, Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to adjudicate matter and some directions issued. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that after spot verification, where it was found that the Complainant was availing power supply unauthorisedly to one water pump by means of extra hooking from nearest L.T bare conductor. Thus spot verification report was prepared and penalty imposed U/s.126 of I.E Act, 2003 and hooking wire was seized on the spot, where the Complainant refused to sign on spot verification report, though he was present. Basing on the spot verification report dtd.02.04.2015, the provisional assessment was made on dtd.03.04.2015 amounting Rs.8,661/- (Rupees Eight thousand six hundred sixty one) only and the final assessment order has been made vide letter No.275 (3) on dtd.06.05.2015 amounting Rs.8,661/- (Rupees Eight thousand six hundred sixty one) only, which is a clear case of U/s.126 of I.E Act, 2003. Moreover, a “complaint” against the assessment made by Assessing Officer U/s.126 or against offences committed U/s.135 to 140 of the I.E Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. So, when there is an assessment, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. In view of authority reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, where in 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. In the Authority reported in III (2015) CPJ-402 (NC) (supra), no assessment has been made in that case. But, in the case in hand, there is an assessment as mentioned earlier.
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 Authorities 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 any cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 21st day of November, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
