SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency-in-service against the Ops, who are the Electrical Authorities with a prayer to direct the Ops to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops bearing old consumer No.MBD-36972 (New No.323223180466 and he used to pay electricity charges regularly. On 24.9.2015, the Ops have disconnected the power supply to his premises without prior intimation. The SDO, Bhograi had collected a wrong meter reading as 908 Kwh instead of 281 Kwh through one Chandan Mohanty which was subsequently proved to be a wrong by one Naba Kumar Behera, who had come for rechecking. Upon objection, the OP No.2 misbehaved the complainant in his office and falsely accused of being availed the electric energy by by-passing the service line to his premises vide letter No.1507 dated 2.9.2015 and refused to sign in it. On being complained, the SDO, Bhograi did not pay any heed to it. Thus, the complainant filed a petition before GRF for redressal of the grievance, but the GRF failed to consider the matter. Thereafter, the complainant filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide WP(C) No.5852 of 2016 wherein the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.4.2016 passed interim order directing restoration of power supply to his premises on deposit of Rs.5,000/-. Subsequently, the complainant deposited Rs.5,170/- including the recharge fee before the Executive Engineer, Jaleswar Division and requested the SDO, Bhograi and J.E., Chandaneswar for taking early steps. But they did not take any steps for restoration of the power supply. On 5.5.2016, the complainant had been to the office of J.E., Chandaneswar and requested him to reconnect the line, but the concerned J.E. get out from his office by assaulting him for which the complainant lodged an FIR before Marine Police Station, Talasari. On 7.5.2016, the Ops have restored the power supply to the premises of the complainant. It is further stated that for the above act of the Ops, the complainant sustained irreparable loss, mental agony and harassment and thereby the Ops have committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present case.
The cause of action arose for filing of this case on 26.4.2016, when the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.5,170/-. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-
- Photocopy of affidavit sworn by one Naba Kumar Behera.
- Photocopy of spot verification report.
- Photocopy of provisional assessment order.
- Photocopy of application of the complainant to the SDO (Electrical), Bhograi.
- Photocopy of Writ Petition bearing No.5852 of 2016.
- Photocopy of order dated 12.4.2016 passed in Misc Case No.5938 of 2016.
- Photocopy of letter issued by OP No.1 in favour of OP No.2.
- Photocopy of receipts.
- Photocopy of FIR.
- Photocopy of application of the complainant in favour of OP No.1.
- Photocopy of one affidavit sworn by one Karik Chandra Mohanty.
- Photocopy of one application of the complainant in favour of OP No.1.
- Photocopy of receipts with bill.
- Photocopy of medical papers in favour of the wife & mother of the complainant.
3. The case against OP No.1 & 3 was dismissed, as the complainant did not take any step against them. Only the OP No.2 was appeared in this case filed his written version, but the same has not been accepted as it was filed beyond the stipulated period.
4. During course of hearing, it is urged on behalf of the complainant that without prior information, on 24.9.2015, the Ops have disconnected the power supply to the premises of the complainant. Further, the SDO, Bhograi had collected a wrong meter reading as 908 Kwh instead of 281 Kwh through one Chandan Mohanty which was subsequently proved to be a wrong by one Naba Kumar Behera, who had come for rechecking. When the complainant objected, the OP No.2 misbehaved the complainant in his office and falsely accused of being availed the electric energy by by-passing the service line to his premises. When the SDO, Bhograi did not pay any heed to it, the complainant filed a petition before GRF for redressal of the grievance, but the GRF failed to consider the matter. Therefore, the complainant filed WP(C) No.5852 of 2016 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa wherein the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.4.2016 passed interim order directing restoration of power supply to his premises on deposit of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant deposited Rs.5,170/- including the recharge fee before the Executive Engineer, Jaleswar Division and requested the SDO, Bhograi and J.E., Chandaneswar for taking early steps. But they did not take any steps for restoration of the power supply. On 5.5.2016, the complainant had been to the office of J.E., Chandaneswar and requested him to reconnect the line, but the concerned J.E. get out from his office by assaulting him for which the complainant lodged an FIR before Marine Police Station, Talasari. It is further submitted that on 7.5.2016, the Ops have restored the power supply to the premises of the complainant. It is further stated that for the above act of the Ops, the complainant sustained irreparable loss, mental agony and harassment and thereby the Ops have committed deficiency in service.
5. On the other hand, during course of hearing, learned counsel for Ops submitted that on 2.9.2015, the verification squad of NESCO made a spot visit to the premises of the complainant and found that he was availing power supply unauthorizedly by-passing the service wire cut before meter. Hence, the spot verification report was prepared at the spot, but the complainant refused to receive or signed on it. The said SVR was served on the complainant through the special messenger with a request to file objection and hearing on 21.9.2015. As the matter could not be taken up on the aforestated date, the matter was adjourned to 23.9.2015 which was also intimated to the complainant. But, as the complainant did not file any objection nor attend the hearing, final assessment order amounting to Rs.20,382.33 paisa was passed against the complainant, which was also served on the complainant for payment or to prefer appeal. But the complainant without preferring any appeal has filed the present case which is not at all maintainable. Hence, it is submitted for dismissal of the complaint.
6. On perusal of spot verification report vide Annexure-2, it is made out that on 2.9.2015 spot verification was made by the squad of NESCO and it was found that the complainant was using power supply unauthorizedly by cutting the service wire before meter and another PVC wire was connected directly from the cut without any connection to the meter and assessment was done U/s 126 of I.E. Act. Similarly, Annexure-3 shows that provisional assessment order was passed against the complainant for Rs.20,382.33 paisa with a request to file objection and to attend the hearing on 21.9.2015. As the complainant did not file any objection nor attend the hearing, final assessment order was passed for the aforesaid amount.
7. From the above discussion and on going through the documents filed on behalf of the complainant, it is seen that this is a case U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In this connection, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in III (20213) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & others –v- Anis Ahmad have been pleased to observed that complaint against assessment made U/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. It is the Civil Court to sit upon the matter with respect to the decision of the assessing Officer. After notice of provisional assessment to the person alleged to have indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by an assessing Officer, who is a public servant, on the assessment of “unauthorized use of electricity” is a quasi-judicial decision and does not fall within the meaning of “consumer dispute” U/s 2(1)(e) of Consumer Protection Act. Offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted U/s 153 of Electricity Act, 2003, thus, also the complaint against any action taken U/s 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Section 173, 174 & 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot drive power to adjudicate a dispute relating to assessment made U/s 126 or offences U/s 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity” do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” as defined U/s 2(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the present case, neither the complainant complied the assessment order made by the Ops nor knocked the door of the Appellate Authority. The complainant has stated that he has filed petition before the GRF, but no document is produced to show that he has filed any application before the GRF. That apart, the complainant has failed to produce any document to show that as to whether the Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble Court is disposed of or is pending yet. In the above premises and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No.2. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 29th day of July, 2024 under the signature & seal of the Commission.
