Per Smt Jayashree D Yengal, Hon’ble Member
Feeling aggrieved by the order dtd.11.07.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati in consumer complaint No.CC/06/76 partly allowing the complaint the original o.p. – MSEDCL has filed the present appeal.
The material facts of the case are as under:-
1. The respondent / original complainant is consumer of the appellant since 2005 and his Consumer No. is 366471171748 and runs Fast Food Counter to earn his livelihood. It is the contention of the respondent that on 27.04.2006 the appellant took away the meter from the premises of respondent and installed a new meter on 03.05.2006 for which the respondent was made to pay of Rs.506/-. The appellant had conducted a surprise inspection on 27.04.2006 and on inspecting the said meter of the respondent they found that the meter was slow by 61.53% and without assigning any further reason, the officers of the appellant took out the meter. Accordingly, the Panchanama was prepared, but the alleged Panchanama did not have current reading of the meter.
2. The appellant alleging theft of electricity, issued bill of Rs.35,700/- on 28.04.2006. The respondent paid the amount of alleged bill on 03.05.2006.
3. The respondent alleged deficiency in service of appellant and filed consumer complaint, alleging thereby that he had been paying the electricity bills regularly and he used to get an average bill of Rs.1,000 /- to Rs.1,500/- every month and also there is regular load shedding of six hours in the area where the respondent / complainant is residing. Therefore, during that period complainant was using generator and as a result consumption of electricity was very limited. Therefore, complainant claimed refund of the amount of Rs.35,700/-, with 18% interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for illegally disconnecting the electric supply and Rs.5,000/- for mental torture.
4. The Forum partly allowed the complaint and held that the bill issued for the sum of Rs.35,700/- was illegal and directed to issue revised bill and after adjusting the amount paid to refund balance surplus amount to the respondent. The Forum also directed the appellant to consider the consumption of electricity to the extent of 300 units per month for six months and thereby to issue revised bill for 1800 units only and further directed that no interest and other charges, etc., should be imposed in the revised bill. On failure to comply the said directions further 7% penal interest would be levied on the appellant.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed the present appeal.
6. At the outset, the appellant has mentioned that the meter was slowed down by 90.91%. This was observed at the time of inspection conducted by the Flying Squad of the appellant and therefore, a bill of Rs.35,700/- was issued to the respondent and a new meter was installed. The appellant further mentioned that at the time of surprise inspection being conducted by the flying squad it was further observed that the meter terminal seal phase was broken, main wire of CP secondary circuit was tampered and used PVC tape and this was further connected with preset. Because of which, the meter was running slow and accordingly, the Panchanama was prepared. Thereafter, the appellant lodged FIR on 16.06.2006 against the respondent for theft of electricity and therefore, submitted that the Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the said consumer complaint.
7. The Forum held that since the appellant had failed to record the meter reading in the Panchanama and also the alleged meter being slowed by 90.99% was not supported by any inspection and it was objectionable. Although admittedly, there was inspection conducted on 27.04.2006 and after two months i.e. 16.06.2006 the FIR was lodged in the Police station. But the Forum observed that u/s 135, 138 & 154 of Electricity Act the complaint is not filed by the concerned officer in the Police station and therefore, appellant has no right to file criminal complaint and if at all filed, is not binding on the respondent. This observation of the Forum is prima facie illegal and not sustainable in law.
8. Further in view of the judgement and order passed by the National Commission in Jharkhand Electricity Board Vs. Anwar Ali – reported in CPJ (II) 2008 – 284 (NC), consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to interfere with the initiation of criminal proceedings or final order passed by any Special court constituted u/s 153 or the Civil liability determined under Sec.154 of Electricity Act.
10. Therefore, we hold that the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati is illegal and not sustainable in law. In the result appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. Consumer Complaint stands dismissed.
3. No order as to cost.
Pronounced on 22.09.2011.
