C.C. No. 1221/2007 Received on : 09/01/2008 Admitted on : 09/01/2008 Decided on : 25/09/2013
Exh. : 12
Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalgaon
Before : Milind S. Sonawane, President.
Chandrakant M. Yeshirao, Member.
Mohammad Akil Mohammad Ismail Teli
Age: 42 yrs Occu. Service,
R/o Gat No. 332, House No. 40,
Laxmi Nagar, Shivaji Nagar,
Tal. Dist. Jalgaon. …. Complainant
V/s
Executive Engineer,
Maharahtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd,
Dixitwadi, Near Mutton Market,
Tal. Dist. Jalgaon …. Opponent.
Adv. Shri. Shirin Amreliwala for the Complainant.
Adv. Shri. Kailas N. Patil for the Opponent.
J U D G M E N T
( Decided on 25th Sept, 2013)
As Per Milind S. Sonawane, President :
1. This is the complaint filed under S.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( the ‘C.P.Act’ for short) for the alleged unfair trade practice. The Complainant has prayed that, the bills of Rs. 12000/- and Rs. 50403/- both dated 17/12/2007 issued by the opponent are unlawful and therefore be cancelled. He has also prayed for other reliefs grantable under the C.P. Act.
2. It is the case of the complaint that, he owns a house at the above mentioned address. He has obtained the electricity Supply from the opponent for the said house. His Meter No. is H 1132403. His meter reading was 1210 from the first day of its installation. Hence he made complaint of the same with the opponent. There had been open wired transformer in the area of his residence. On one day a child had died due to electric shock. The people of the locality made the several complaints in ‘Lokshahi Din’ to the Collector against the opponents. Hence, the opponent was having the grudge against the people of his locality. As such, on one day he received the disputed bills. The complainant alleged that, because of the personal grudge of the opponent, he has been given the disputed bills. The load shown for his house, in the said bills is 3 KW, which is not possible for the house. According to him, the above acts of the opponent are unlawful. Hence he filed the present compliant. As such, he has prayed that, the bills of Rs. 12000/- and Rs. 50403/- both dated 17/12/2007 may kindly be cancelled. He also prayed for other reliefs grantable under the C.P. Act.
4. The opponent appeared in the matter and filed Written Version at Exh. 8 and resisted the claim of the complainant. According to the opponent, the complainant has committed the theft of the Electricity. On 15/12/2009 at about 10.30 a.m. Incharge Executive Engineer and other officers along with their squad were detecting the theft of the electricity of locality of the complainant. When they inspected the house of the complainant, it was found that, he has bypassed the meter and took the electricity supply. He has also stared the grossary shop in the name and style of Rajasthan Kirana and General Stores. As such, panchanama of the scene was prepared. The assessment of the theft amount was made at Rs.50,403/- under Rule No. 8.6 of the Maharahtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (electricity supply code and other conditions of supply) Rules, 2005. Similarly, bill of Rs. 12,000/- has been issued to the complainant for compounding the charge of theft of the electricity. As such, according to the opponent, both the bills have been issued in accordance with law. The offence bearing C.R. No.1/2008 is also been lodged against the complainant for the theft of the electricity in the police, as he has not paid the bills. It is therefore, the opponent has prayed that, the complaint may kindly be dismissed with the compensatory Cost of Rs. 10,000/-
5. We noticed that, the opponent filed its Written Version Exh. 8 along with affidavit Exh. 8A on 1/04/2008. Thereafter, the complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence at Exh. 10 on 23/10/2010. Thereafter, the complainant has neither led further evidence nor closed the same. He is absent since 12/11/2010. Hence we proceeded to decide the matter as per the merit of it , vide S. 13(2) (c) of the C.P. Act, instead of dismissing it in default. We heard the learned Advocate Shri. Kailas Patil for the opponent. We gave thoughtful consideration to the argument made by him, which is appropriately referred to in the subsequent paras.
6. The points for determination alongwith our findings thereon are as under.
Points Findings
- Whether this forum has jurisdiction to try
and entertain the complaint? … No
- What Order? … The complaint is dismissed.
REASONS
As to Point No. 1 :
7. The learned Adv. Shri. Kailas Patil for the opponent submitted that, the present matter is pertaining to the theft of the electricity. The complainant has suppressed the material facts from the forum. The disputed bills have been issued as the compounding charges and for the theft of the electricity. He draw our attention to the fact that, the copy of the disputed bills, which is filed by the complainant himself at List Exh. 4/1 and 2 have clear mention of the fact that, the bills have been issued including the compounding charges for the offence of the theft of the electricity. On the inspection of the said bill we found substance in the submission of the learned counsel.
8. Besides, we found that, the opponent has also filed with List Exh.09, the FIR in C.R. No. 1/2008, Spot Panchamana , Assessment Sheet, Bill for the theft of electricity. On the perusal of the above documentary evidence, it turns out that, this is a case of theft of electricity and consequential assessment. The F.I.R. List Exh 9/1 and Assessment Sheet List Exh. 9/3 reflects that, assessment is made under S.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, in view of the recent decision dated 1/07/2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ U.P. Power Corporation Ltd and Ors V/s Anis Ahmad ‘ this forum is not having the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. Hence, we answer point no. 1 in negative.
As to Point No. 2 :
9. In view of the findings given as to point no. 1 in negative, it has become clear that, the disputed bills are the result of theft of the electricity and consequential assessment made under S.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As such, in view of the recent decision dated 1/07/2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ U.P. Power Corporation Ltd and Ors V/s Anis Ahmad ‘ this forum is not having the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The complaint will have to be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will have to bear their own cost. Hence, in an answer to point no. 2, we pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. The Complaint is dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own cost.
3. The copy of the judgment be given to the parties free of cost.
Milind S.Sonawane, President
Date : 25th Sept 2013 Chandrakant M. Yeshirao, Member
Jalgaon
