::: नि का ल प ञ:::

निशाणी क्र.1 वर आदेश

(मंचाचे निर्णयान्‍वये, विजय चं. प्रेमचंदानी, मा.अध्‍यक्ष)

(पारीत दिनांक :- 6.11.2015)

अर्जदाराने सदरची तक्रार ग्राहक सरक्षंण कायद्याचे कलम 14 सह 12 अन्‍वये दाखल केली आहे.  सदर तक्रारीचा थोडक्‍यात आशय खालील प्रमाणे.

1.          अर्जदाराने गैरअर्जदाराकडून वीज पुरवठा घेतला होता.  गैरअर्जदाराने रेकॉर्ड अध्‍यावत केला नाही व दि.11.3.2013 चे नंतर गैरअर्जदाराचे कार्यालयाने अध्‍यावत देयक अर्जदारास पाठविलेले नाही अशी परिस्थिती असतांना गैरअर्जदाराचे कार्यालयाने रुपये 33,661/- चे बेकायदेशीर देयक वीज चोरी केली असा आरोप करीत पाठविलेले आहे.  अर्जदाराने गैरअर्जदाराला दि.11.3.2013 पासून ग्राहक लेजरची मागणी केलेली असतांना ग्राहक लेजर पाठविले नाही.  अर्जदाराचे विरुध्‍द गैरअर्जदाराने आजपर्यंत कोणताही गुन्‍हा दाखल केलेला नाही.  गैरअर्जदाराने अर्जदाराचा वीज पुरवठा दि.1.10.2015 रोजी बेकायदेशीर खंडीत केला.  अर्जदाराने दि.15.10.2015 रोजी गैरअर्जदाराला दि.2.10.2015 चे देयकाबाबत नोटीस पाठविला.  गैरअर्जदाराला वीज कायदा 2003 चे कलम 135 अन्‍वये असेसमेंटचे कोणतेही अधिकार गैरअर्जदाराला नाही त्‍यामुळे गैरअर्जदाराने अर्जदाराप्रती अनुचित व्‍यापार पध्‍दतीची अवलंबना केली आहे व न्‍युनतमपूर्ण सेवा दिलेली आहे म्‍हणून सदर तक्रार मंचासमक्ष दाखल करण्‍यात आलेली आहे. 

2.          अर्जदाराने तक्रारीत अशी मागणी केली आहे की, गैरअर्जदाराने अर्जदाराचा दि. 1.10.2015 रोजी खंडीत केलेला वीज पुरवठा तातडीने पुर्नस्‍थापीत करुन द्यावा.  तसेच अर्जदाराला पाठविलेला रुपये 33,661/- चे देयक रद्द करण्‍यात यावे आणि अर्जदाराला झालेल्‍या शारिरीक व मानसिक ञासापोटी नुकसान भरपाई व तक्रारीचा खर्च गैरअर्जदाराकडून मि޺ळण्‍याचा आदेश व्‍हावे. 

3.          अर्जदार तर्फे वकीलांचा प्राथमिक युक्‍तीवाद ऐकण्‍यात आले. अर्जदार तर्फे वकीलांनी असे युक्‍तीवाद केले की, अर्जदाराने कोणतीही वीज चोरी केली नाही म्‍हणून गैरअर्जदारातर्फे पाठविलेले देयक व वीज चोरीचा लावलेला आरोप खोटे असून गैरअर्जदाराने अर्जदाराप्रती अनुचित व्‍यवहार पध्‍दतीची अवलंबना केलेली आहे.  तसेच तक्रारीत अर्जदाराने वीज चोरीबाबत पाठविलेले देयक मागणी केलेली आहे. 

4.          मा.राष्‍ट्रीय ग्राहक निवारण आयोग यांनी दिलेल्‍या न्‍यायनिवाड्यानुसार :

 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1112 OF 2014

 (From the order dated 21.10.2013 in First Appeal No. 80 of 2009 of the

Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad)

Walmik

Versus

Maharashtra State Electricity

Distribution Co. Ltd.

DATED:  13.01.2015

5.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5416 of 2012, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Anis Ahmed, inter alia held as under:

“45. The National Commission though held that the intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and have saved the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, failed to notice that by virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections 173,174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in "unauthorized use of electricity" as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Sections 135 to 140 do not fall within the meaning of “complaint" as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

46. The acts of indulgence in "unauthorized use of electricity" by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003 neither has any relationship with "unfair trade practice" or "restrictive trade practice" or "deficiency in service" nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the licensee. Such acts of "unauthorized use of electricity" has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in 'unauthorized use of electricity', do not fall within the meaning of "complaint", as we have noticed above and, therefore, the "complaint" against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

47. In view of the observation made above, we hold that:

(i) ***

(ii) A “complaint” against the assessment made by 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.

(iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or  “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”.

6.      It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since there was no theft of the electricity, the District Forum would have jurisdiction in the matter and consequently the demand raised by the Board was wholly illegal.  She also submits that in view of the unjustified disconnection of the electricity, the petitioner/complainant is entitled to appropriate damages from the respondent.

7.      In my view, one the opposite party takes a plea that the case in question was a case of theft of electricity, the Consumer Forum would not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and go into the question as to whether there was actually theft of electricity or not.  The competence to inquire into the allegations made in the complaint would arise only if the complaint is otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum; if, on account of allegation of theft of electricity, the Consumer Forum lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it cannot proceed to adjudicate upon the factual issue raised in the complaint and cannot adjudicate one way or the other way on merits.  The Consumer Forum would in such circumstance have to keep its hand off the matter, leaving it to the aggrieved person to approach an appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance.  I am in agreement with the State Commission that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anis Ahmad (supra), the complaint itself was not maintainable.  Therefore, there can be no question of the State Commission entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioner.  The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

            सदर प्रकरणात वीज चोरीबाबत देयक पाठविण्‍यात आलेले आहे.  वरील नमूद असलेला न्‍यायनिवाड्याचा आधार घेतांना मंचाचे असे मत ठरले आहे की, सदर तक्रार चालविण्‍याचा या मंचाचे अधिकार क्षेञ नाही.  सबब, खालील प्रमाणे अंतिम आदेश पारीत करण्‍यात येते.

   अंतीम आदेश

      1)    अर्जदाराची तक्रार अस्विकृत करुन खारीज करण्‍यात येते.

2)    अर्जदाराने आपला तक्रारीचा खर्च स्‍वतः सहन करावा.

3)    आदेशाची प्रत अर्जदाराला विनामुल्‍य पाठविण्‍यात यावी.

4)    अर्जदाराला तक्रारीची मुळ प्रत सोडून उर्वरीत प्रत परत करण्‍यात यावी.  

5)    सदर निकालपञाची प्रत संकेतस्‍थळावर टाकण्‍यात यावी.

चंद्रपूर

दिनांक -   6/11/2015