Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that complainant is a consumer under the opposite parties. It is alleged that on 10.11.2006, the opposite parties disconnected the power supply of the petitioner without any notice, even if the complainant has not defaulted to pay the electric bill. The complainant requested the opposite parties to restore the power supply, but the opposite parties did not take any steps, rather the opposite parties sent a provisional bill for the month of November, 2006 for Rs. 1729/- which is a faulty one. During the pendency of the case, the opposite parties sent another bill for Rs. 30,714/- towards theft of electricity. The complainant protested the said bill in writing but no reply was given by the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint was filed.
4. The opposite parties filed written version stating that as per the inventory report of the MRT staff, the complainant has committed theft of energy by hooking from electric pole directly and connected to the meter. As such, penal bill was raised as per Indian Electricity Act. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
“ Keeping in view the above discussion, we hold that the Complainant has proved his case. Accordingly, we pass an order under Section 14(i)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as below:-
- The opposite parties are directed to cancel the bill dated 6.1.07 submitted for unauthorised use of energy to the Complainant and further directed not to disconnect the power supply of the complainant for the above purpose.
- The Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only towards the compensation and Rs. 400/- (Rupees Four Hundred) only towards the cost of the case.
- The above orders will be carry out within 4(four) weeks from receipt of the judgment copy, failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above amounts”.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum, without considering the materials on record passed the impugned order which should be set aside. According to him, as per the inventory report of the MRT staff, they found that the complainant has committed theft of energy by hooking from electric pole directly and connected to the meter. Accordingly they have issued a final bill of Rs. 27172/- to the complainant. Protesting the issuance of the final bill, the complainant filed the objection. He submitted that learned District Forum ought to have considered the same. He has also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Anis Ahmad, AIR 2013 SC 2766 where their Lordships observed as follows:-
“xxxx xxxx xxxx
......A ‘complaint’ against the assessment made by the assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.”
7. Considered the submissions of the parties, perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. On perusal of the records, it appears that the MRT staff found that the complainant has committed theft of energy unauthorizedly bypassing the metering arrangement and violating the provisions of the agreement and regulation in force. Accordingly, they have issued the penal bill. Objection to the same has been raised by the complainant and thereafter final bill was raised. All these materials have not been considered by the learned District Forum.
9. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation case (supra) that in case of hooking, malfunctioning or bypassing energy, the Consumer complaint is not maintainable and authorities under the Act to be followed. From the aforesaid decision, it is very clear that if there is theft of energy or tampering of meter, the Consumer Protection Act would not be applicable. Since it is a case under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, we are of the view that learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing the impugned order which should be set aside and accordingly we set aside the impugned order.
10. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
