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), Saragan Section, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O, Electrical (NESCO), R.E-II, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Executive Engineer, CED, Balasore.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is the wife of Niranjan Barik, who was a domestic Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer old A/c No.BN-17983 and new A/c No.324112010093. After the death of Niranjan Barik, the Complainant is using electric power under the said Consumer number and paying electric bills regularly. But, surprisingly in the month of May-2017, the O.Ps had given a bill on dtd.19.06.2017 to the Complainant, where it was found that the previous meter reading for the month of April-2017 was 6233 unit and in the month of May-2017, it was 6309 unit. So, the actual consumption for the month of May-2017 by the Complainant is 76 units. So, the bill has been calculated at Rs.306.27 ps. (Rupees Three hundred six and twenty seven paisa) only, but in that bill, adjust amount of Rs.50267.35 ps. (Rupees Fifty thousand two hundred sixty seven and thirty five paisa) only has been added illegally. So, the Complainant approached the O.Ps several times for correction of the said bill, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it. Thereafter, the Complainant had issued a letter on dtd.01.09.2017 to the O.P No.3 through registered post with A/D with a prayer to revise the bill, but the O.Ps did not take any steps. On the other hand, on dtd.28.10.2017, the authorised officials of the O.Ps entered into the house and threatened the Complainant to disconnect electric line if the Complainant will not clear the total electric bill as imposed illegally against her, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps. Cause of action arose on dtd.03.11.2017. The Complainant has prayed for correction of the bill along with compensation.
3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as Consumer. The O.Ps have further submitted that one Niranjan Barik was a domestic Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.BN-17983 and after his death, as per the Mandate of Law, none of his family member/ legal heir has entered into any agreement with the O.Ps. So, the present Complainant is not a Consumer under the O.Ps. On dtd.15.03.2017, the authorised officials of the O.Ps had been to the premises of the Complainant for verification and detected that the Complainant was availing Power Supply illegally and unauthorisedly without any metering system. The connection to the meter was cut and the service wire found to be replaced with a good one of 6mm 2 PVC service connection wire. The T.P box seal was cut and the Complainant was availing power supply to the tune of 3090 watts against the initial approved contract demand of 1.5 K.W. Thus, a spot verification report was prepared and the Complainant did not sign on it, for which a copy of which was affixed on the main entrance of her house. Accordingly, provisional assessment vide No.73, dtd.27.03.2017 was prepared for Rs.50,236/- (Rupees Fifty thousand two hundred thirty six) only along with security deposit of Rs.1,796.40 ps. (Rupees One thousand seven hundred ninety six and forty paisa) only and served to the Complainant. But, the Complainant did not file any objection against the provisional assessment order. Thus, the final assessment vide No.243, dtd.01.06.2017 was prepared and also served to the Complainant. But the Complainant has neither paid the assessment amount nor appealed before the appellate authority U/s.127 of Electricity Act-2003. So, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.
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 the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.Ps as per C.P Act-1986 ?
(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 on 19.06.2017, the Complainant received a bill for the month of May-2017, where the actual consumption for the month of May-2017 by the Complainant was 76 units amounting Rs.306.27 ps. (Rupees Three hundred six and twenty seven paisa) only and also an adjust amount of Rs.50267.35 ps. (Rupees Fifty thousand two hundred sixty seven and thirty five paisa) only has been added illegally in that bill. So, the Complainant approached the O.Ps several times for correction of the said bill, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it rather they have threatened the Complainant on 28.10.2017 to disconnect electric line if she will not clear the total electric bill as imposed illegally against her, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. Thus, the Complainant has filed this case praying for correction of the bill along with compensation. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that the Complainant is not a Consumer under the O.Ps and on 15.03.2017, the authorised officials of the O.Ps have verified the premises of the Complainant in presence of her and found that the Complainant was availing power supply unauthorisedly, detailed of which has been mentioned in the spot verification report. Thereafter, observing necessary formalities of Law, provisional assessment and final assessment has been prepared, which were also been 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 30th day of July, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
