(AS PER SHRI. YUSUFZAI SAMIULLA KHAN, PRESIDENT)
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
For the Complainant Shri M.W. Chandawani, Advocate
For the Opponents Shri. K.V. Kotwal, Advocate
JUDGEMENT
(Delivered on 16th day of August 2006)
1 This is complaint filed u/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 for correction of the bill dt. 9-8-2005 after reducing a sum of Rs.50,000/- compounding amount and adjustment of Rs.7776/- the excess amount.
2 Case of complainant is that, he is a consumer of Opponents bearing No.66/4300/02066880. It is alleged that, there was inspection of his electric meter and after a simple show of Panchanama a huge demand bill was issued against which he had made a representation. The opponents were convinced and the bill dt. 9-8-2005 was corrected and thereafter provisioned bill was issued. He has alleged that the opponents had illegally included Rs.50,000/- in the bill the compounding charges. It is submitted that, there was no offer by him to compound the offence and hence the compounding charges included in the bill has no meaning. It is prayed that the compounding charges which were already paid should be deducted from the bill and excess amount will be adjusted in the future bill.
3 The Opponents have filed written statement at Exb-14. They have also filed preliminary objections at Exb-9 and their common defence is that the complainant is not a consumer because he using electricity for commercial purpose and hence the present complaint is not maintainable. It is also defence of opponents that this forum has not jurisdiction to decide the dispute. It is alleged that the electric meter was checked and it was found that the meter was slow by 70%. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4 The only point arises for our determination, Whether the complainant is entitled for reduction of Rs.50,000/- from the bill dt. 9/8/2005 and the adjustment of Rs.7776/- in the future bill and our findings is in affirmative.
5 We heard both the counsels of both the sides. Out of two preliminary objections one objection is decided by the forum that the complainant is a consumer who is running a small business of photo Studio under a scheme of self employement. But as far as another preliminary objection is concerned the matter was left which was to be decided on merit.
6 It is alleged by o.p. that there was theft and hence this forum has no jurisdiction to decided the dispute . We do not accept the defence of Opponents on second ground. Section 145 of the Electricity Act.2003 excludes jurisdiction of Civil Court from entertaining any matter in respect of assessment u/s 126 of the same act. We are of the firm opinion that this forum is not the civil court and hence this barring provision does not prevent us from deciding the dispute. Secondly, if for the sake of argument it is presumed that this is a civil court then we submit that even then this forum or the civil court has jurisdiction to decided the present dispute for a simple reason that the complainant is not challenging the assessment. In this way we decide the second preliminary objection against the opponents.
7 The counsel for opponents has relied upon the decision reported in III (2005) CPJ 519 in the case of W.B.S.E.B. Versus MALATISHA, and IV (2004) CPJ 353 in the case of Khiralata Samal Vs. S.D.O./A.M.(COMM) Electrical Sub-Division CESCO Ltd & Anr. The first authority is not applicable because the point of first objection was already decided by the forum. The second authority is also not applicable because the complainant has not challenged the assessment bill and the alleged theft. The opponents have filed copy of panchanama at Exb-4-B. This panchanama does not show the signature of complainant and panchas as three lines are kept blank . We are not going to give the findings on the points of theft but we are simply referring the document which are filed by the opponents. Exb.4-C is the bill and Exb.4-D is the receipt. Exb.4-E shows that the assessment bill of Rs.45910/- was corrected by opponents and bill of Rs.4095/- was issued . It appears from this document that the opponents were convinced by representation of complainant and a huge bill was reduced to Rs.4095/- This is a piece of evidence to show that the complainant has not challenged the assessment.
8 The foregoing discussion is sufficient to come to the conclusion that this forum has every jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute.
9 Now we come to the point of main dispute. It is admitted by o.p. that the bill of Rs.92225/- below Exb. 4-A shows Rs.50,000/- towards compounding charges were included. According to complainant, opponents have no right to charge Rs.50000/- towards compounding of offence. The counsel for complainant has invited my attention to sec.152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and contended that there was no offer by his client to compound the offence and hence the insertion of Rs.50,000/- is totally unwarranted. We are re-producing sec.152 as follows :-
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974), the
Appropriate Government or any officer
authorized by it in this behalf may accept from
any consumer or person who committed or who
is reasonable suspected of having committed
an offence of theft of electricity punishable
under this Act, a sum of money by way of
compounding of the offence as specified in the
Table below.”
10 The language of this section is very clear. It says that the appropriate government or any authorized officer may accept from consumer who has commited theft or is suspected to have committed theft of electricity a sum of money by way of compounding of offence . There is absolutely no evidence to show that the complainant was prepared to compound the offence by offering a particular sum to the authorized offier. It appears from the first document i.e. Exb.4-A that the opponent on their own account added Rs.50,000/- in the bill. This action of opponent is not justified and is liable to be discouraged. Thus in view of above discussion and the documents on record and the language of sec.152of the Electricity Act 2003, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed and accordingly the final order follows.
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed.
2. The opposite parties are directed to correct the bill dt. 9-8-2005 after deducting the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) and they are further directed to adjust Rs.7776/- (Rs. Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Six Only)the excess amount in the future bill .
3. In view of facts and circumstances of the case we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.
