SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of providing inflated and arbitrary energy bills are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No. 02540699 with a contract demand of 1 KW and complainant was paying the monthly energy dues as per actual meter reading. The Junior Manager of Ops inspected the complainant’s house on 28/10/2014 and obtained the signature of the complainant’s mother. It is stated that on the monthly energy bill of December-2014 the energy charges were enhanced to the tune of Rs. 12,607/-. Complainant protested the energy bill and claimed by way of written application for provisional assessment and final assessment order. But all attempts went in vain for which complainant sought information under RTI to Manager, KED-II, Marshaghai, who replied that complaint’s house was inspected on 6/11/2014 which according to complainant is false and imaginary date created for the purpose to harass the complainant- consumer, such acts of the Ops gave financial loss and mental agony and prays this Forum to cancel the arrear outstanding bill and to get compensation for mental agony.
3. Being noticed Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. P.K.Samal and filed w/s into the dispute, challenging the maintainability of the complaint U/S 145 of the Electricity Act-2003 and by citing the decision of Honbl’e Apex court in the case of Up power corp. and Others- vrs- Anis Ahmed. It is averred on the w/s that complainant’s installation was inspected by the authorities on 28/10/2014, but on PVR the date of inspection is inadvertently mentioned as 06/11/2014. On the alleged date of Inspection/verification it was detected that complainant consumer is availing the P/S by parallel hooking and basing on the verification report the Assessment officer provisionally assessed and directed the complainant to pay Rs. 12,607/- the power as conferred to the officer U/S126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The copy of the physical verification report and provisional assessment are filed on to the case as Annexture A & B. Further the counter of the Ops reveal that U/S174 and 175 of the Electricity Act-2003, regarding unauthorized use of P/S seizes the power of the Forums to adjudicate the dispute. It is further revealed from the w/s that complainant to avoid the payment of penal charges and taking the advantage of the interim order, is not paying the current monthly dues and on the said circumstance the complainant is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed with examplory cost.
4. Heard the arguments advance by complainant who is a Senior Citizen and Ld.Casel for the Ops and examined the documents written notes on argument filed in to the dispute. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No. 02540699 with a contract demand of 1 KW. It is further admitted that complaint’s residentional house was inspected/verified by the officials of Ops and Ops have imposed a penal amount of Rs. 12,607/- on the complainant-consumer.
The dispute mainly relates to unauthorized consumption of electricity. It begins from the alleged date of inspection/verification. According to complainant his house was inspected on 28/10/2014 where the signature of the complainant’s mother was obtained. The Xerox copies of the authorization certificate of verification bearing Sl. No. 1672 dtd. 28/10/2014 are filed by both the parties, where the authorized representative of the complainant has put her signature as ‘Sabitri Acharya’ But in the W/S the Ops take the plea that in physical verification report (PVR) it is wrongly mentioned as 06/11/2014. But written statement of Ops are silent regarding the provisional assessment order where it is also mentioned that the date of physical verification date is 06/11/2014, Complainant on his complaint petition categorically states that verification of this premises was conducted on 28/10/2014, But the documents filed by the Ops i.e. PVR, Provisional assessment clearly shows that the date of inspection is 06/11/2014, The plea of inadvertent mistake does not create any impression upon this Forum. That apart the disputed PVR conducted by Ops does not comply the regulation, regulation 52 of OREC-2004 provides that “If the consumer or his representative refuses to sign on the Inventory the inspection report an endorsement to that effect shall be made by the engineer on the body of the report. A copy of the report shall be affixed at the consumer premises. though the PVR report filed into the dispute reflects ‘Refuse to sign’ but the w/v is silent regarding affix of PVR report in complaint’s premises. The Inventory/ Inspection report prepared by the Ops in a later stage as raised by the complainant cannot be ruled out as such copies of report are supplied to the complainant-consumer after approaching to the Ops by way of written application and under RTI Act. One such letter addressed to Op No.3 reflected the date of application as 16/03/2015 which is received by Op No. 3 with their Official seal and signature. Hence, this Forum arrived into a conclusion that the dispute physical verification Report and provisional Assessment order was not communicated to complainant-consumer till dt.16/03/2015 as per the resolution 3.7.A.E. vide Govt. of ODISHA, Energy Deptt. Notification No. 10382/R&R-1120/2004.
Another aspect which has been ignored in the present dispute is non-compliance of provisions described on Nodal procedure for dealing with the cases for theft of Power & other Misc. Activities approved by the Management Board of CESU in its meeting held on 11/09/2007, where the resolution No.3.7.A.B. on procedure to be followed for provisional assessment clearly defines that “xxxxxxxxx” the Honbl’e OERC while making review of the activities of the GRF have taken a view that, the assessing Officer himself to remain present at the time of Inspection failing which the assessment made by the assessing Officer shall be treated as illegal. We give much importance to the word “shall be treated as illegal” in written version it is nowhere mentioned that the Official who conducted the alleged inspection was same who made the provisional assessment. The copy of said resolution is filed by both the parties to enlighten this Forum marked as Annexure ‘A’. The instructions are applicable to the present Ops as Ops are the distribution Franchise of CESU, all the instructions/ Govt. Notification/circulars/regulations are to be strictly adhered by the Op-company. In the discussion made above, it is crystal clear that Ops have not acted in accordance with the provisions/ regulations while preparing the physical verification report and provisional assessment of complainant consumer.
Now, we have to discuss the position of law involved in the dispute. Ops in their written version raising the question of maintainability by citing the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of up power corp. & others- vs- Anis Ahamed along with the Section 126,145,174 and 175of Indian Electricity Act,2003. Section 126 of Indian Electricity Act relates to the theft of energy and Section 145 deals with jurisdiction of the disputes relates to theft of energy. In such cases the Consumer Forums are not empowered to adjudicate the disputes relates to ‘theft of power.’ The judgment of Honbl’e Apex Court is supported by the decision of Honbl’e National Commission in case of UHBVNL through its S.D.O. Operation- vs- Sashi Chander reported in 2014(4) CPR 134(NC).The Hon’ble National Commission in their decision opined and we excerpt the following lines of paragraph 5 of the judgement “ xxxxxxxxxxx merely because there is concurrent findings to the effect that theft has not been established, Consumer Forum does not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because had complaint not been entertained, there was no occasion to hold theft was not established.” So, it is clear that on allegation U/S-126 of Indian Electricity Act-2003 the Forum lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. If the complainant-consumer has to redress his grievance he has to approach to the competent authority established under the statute. U/S-145 of Indian Electricity Act,2003 provides the aggrieved consumers to file their cases before the Designatedy Authority/Electrical Inspector as decided by the concerned State Govt..In the written version Opp.Parties averred that complainant taking the advantage of the interim order is not paying the monthly dues. On these aspect, we observe that no interim order/direction is issued in the present litigation to the Ops for not collecting the monthly dues. The specific averment of interim direction by Ops not confuse us but mislead the delivery of justice to the parties. Thus, we caution the Ops not to take such fake pleas in future.
Considering the factual aspect and position of law involved in the dispute, complainant is at liberty to raise his grievance before appropriate authority and we, hope if the complainant approaches the appropriate authority, the authority will consider our above mentioned observation and time limit is not a bar to file the complaint before the appropriate authority. One month time is given to the complainant from receipt of this order to file his grievances if any before the appropriate authority.
Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of on contest as per our above observation without any cost.
Pronounced today in the open Court this 30th July,,2016.
