D.O.F:26/11/2021

D.O.O:27/04/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

IA-02/2023 IN CC-219/2021

Dated this, the 27^th day of April 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M   : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                          : MEMBER

Mohammed. K,

S/o Abdulla,

R/at Choorimoola,                                                               : Complainant

Chappadi House,

Masthikund,

Muliyar Village & Post,

Kasaragod Taluk & District,

Kerala

(Adv. Shafi.M)

                                                                   And

1. Kerala State Electricity Board,

Rep. by Secretary,

Thirvanathapuram

2. Sub Engineer,

KSEB Electrical Section,: Opposite Parties

• cherkkala

3. The Village Officer,

Muliyar Village and Post,

• Kasaragod

(Adv. M. Mohanan Nambiar)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K     :PRESIDENT

          The consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant on the basis that he is a consumer of Opposite Party with agricultural connection.  On 22/09/2020 official of Opposite Party visited the spot, prepared a Mahazar showing unauthorized use of power for non- agricultural purpose, imposed a fine of Rs.213475/- Revenue Recovery proceedings insisted for recovery of fine.  Prayer in complaint is to set aside calculation sheet, to direct Opposite Party to stop further proceedings, to drop Revenue recovery steps, pay compensation and litigation of cost.  The Opposite party filed written version denying the claim.  The Opposite Party says that issue is well covered in (2013) (3) KHC SN-19 of Honorable Supreme Court.  Fine is imposed under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003.  Hence, consumer complaint is not maintainable.

          The Opposite Party filed IA 02/2023 to decide maintainability as a preliminary issue.  IA is posted for counter by respondent/ Complainant.  No counter filed.  Heard the parties and is taken up for order.

1. The only question involved in these case is whether CDRC has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the consumer against the bill raised under section 126 of  the Electricity Act 2003 or against the action taken under section 135 of Electricity Act of 2003
2. Section 126 of the 2003 Act falls under chapter XII and relates to investigation enforcement and empower the assessing offer to pass an order of assessment.
3. Section 135 of the 2003 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and penalty that can be imposed for such theft.

As per section 126 of the Electricity Act an assessing officer can conduct inspection of any place or premises where the electric connection was provided and on inspection if he comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity he shall provisionally assess the electricity charges payable by such person and the order of the provisional assessment shall be served up on the person by occupation or possession in charge of the place or premises.  As per section 126 (3) of the Act the person to whom an order has been served shall be entitled to file appeal? assessing officer and after hearing the party the assessing officer shall pass a final order of assessment.  Section 127 of the Electricity Act provides that “ any person aggrieved by a final order made under section 126 may within 30 days of such order, prefer an appeal before the appellate authority”.[ in Utterpradesh Power Corporation Ltd and others Vs AnisAhamed (2013) 8 Supreme Cases 491] the Honorable Supreme Court held that “ complaint against assessment made under section 126 or action taken against those committing officers under section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”.  In that decision it was also held that acts of a person indulging in an unauthorized use of electricity do not fall within the meaning of “complaint and therefore the complaint against the assessment under section 126 of electricity is not maintainable before the consumer forum”.  In KSEB Ltd and another Vs KSCDRC and others [(2018) (4) KHC 315] the Honorable High Court of Kerala held that “CDRF or State Commission has no jurisdiction to decide matters which come under the scope of section 126.  Aggrieved shall resort to remedies before the authorities and appellate Forum provided under Electricity Act”.

          Considering all these matter CDRC finds that the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission and hence closed the complaint or not maintainable.

     Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                              Sd/-

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/