Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/1077

KISHORE SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MPEB - Opp.Party(s)

SH.NARAYAN SINGH

26 Nov 2021

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                    FIRST APPEL NO. 1077 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 17.08.2015 passed in C.C.No.184/2013 by the District Commission Khandwa)

 

KISHORE SINGH.                                                                                              …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT

VITRAN CO. LTD. THROUGH EXECUTIVE

ENGINEER, KHANDWA.                                                                                  …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK    :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                :      MEMBER          

                 

 

                                      O R D E R

26.11.2021

 

          Shri Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

             Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per Dr. Monika Malik :                       

                        This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Khandwa (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 184/2013 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                The case of the complainant is such that there is an electricity connection no.3465203-78-21-9353740000 in the name of his father in his premises and the complainant is using the aforesaid electricity connection.  He was paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that the opposite party was giving excessive bills of which complaints were made but the opposite party had not given redressal to his grievance. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the

 

-2-

opposite party, the complainant approached the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the complainant was being given bills on the basis of meter reading. On inspection of the meter, the meter seal was found broken and the complainant tried to manage the meter for slow reading but instead of slow reading, the meter ran fast and since the complainant was drawing electricity in an unauthorized manner, which falls under under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, therefore this complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission.

4.                Heard. Perused the record.

5.                We find that the opposite party/respondent inspected the premises of the complainant on 02.05.2013 and found that the meter was reversed of which panchnama was prepared in the presence of the complainant.  Subsequently on testing the meter seal was found broken.

6.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmad, III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC) has held that a Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as acts of indulging in unauthorized use of electricity as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act do not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint being not maintainable before the District Commission, has rightly been dismissed by the District Commission.

-3-

7.                In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the matter we decline to interfere in the impugned order.  In our view, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. This appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

            (Dr. Monika Malik)                           (S. S. Bansal)               

             Presiding Member                              Member