C.C. No. 1206/2009 Received on : 10/08/2009 Admitted on : 10/08/2009 Decided on : 25/09/2013
Exh. : 14
Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalgaon
Before : Milind S. Sonawane, President.
Chandrakant M. Yeshirao, Member.
Sau. Anuradha Ashok Gaund
Age: Adult Occu. Business,
R/o Flat No. 7,Sangeeta Appartment,
Nehru Chauk,
Tal. Dist. Jalgaon. …. Complainant
V/s
Maharahtra State Electricity Distribution Ltd,
Through Executive Engineer,
Kombadi Bazar,
Tal. Dist. Jalgaon …. Opponents
Adv. Shri. H.S. Deore for the Complainant.
Adv. Shri. Kailas N. Patil for the Opponent.
J U D G M E N T
( Decided on 25th Sept, 2013)
As Per Milind S. Sonawane, President :
This is the complaint filed under S.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( the ‘C.P.Act’ for short) for the alleged unfair trade practice. The Complainant has prayed that, the bill of Rs. 12544.75/- dated 16/07/2009 issued by the opponent be declared as unlawful and cancelled. She has also prayed for other reliefs grantable under the C.P. Act.
2. It is the case of the complaint that, she owns a grossary cum pan shop at Shop No .25 in Chaube Market, Bahvanni Peth, Jalgaon. She has obtained the electricity Supply from the opponent for the said shop. Her Consumer No. is 110011074766. She is and was paying the bills regularly. But on 15/06/2008 the person appointed by the opponents to take the meter reading told her that, the meter is not found to him at place. She reported the incidence of the theft of the meter to the Police. Thereupon, she applied to the opponents for the installation of a new meter and paid the sum of Rs. 1900/- towards the stolen as well as new meter. It alleged by the complainant that, the incharge officer Madhu Patil of the opponent threaten her of a false police complaint of a theft of the electricity and asked her to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the bill. She has not been able to pay the same and therefore upon the false information of said Madhu Patil, the opponent has issued her a disputed bill. According to her, the above acts of the opponents are unlawful. Hence she filed the present compliant. As such, she prayed that, the bill dated 16/07/2009 of Rs. 12544.75/- may kindly be declared as unlawful and cancelled accordingly. She has also prayed for other reliefs grantable under the C.P. Act.
4. The opponent appeared in the matter and filed Written Version at Exh. 11 and resisted the claim of the complainant. According to the opponent, the complainant has committed the theft of the Electricity. On 017/06/2009 Junior Engineer, Pimprala Cell - 1 visited the shop of the complainant. He found that, there is no meter though electrical devices and instruments are being used in the shop. He was told by the son of the complainant that, the meter has been stolen and the electricity is being used by tapping it directly from the supply lines. He admitted the theft of the electricity and shown the readiness to pay the penalty bill. Accordingly, he gave his statement before the police and pancahanama of the scene has been prepared. The copy of the same was given to the son of the complainant. According to the opponent, the disputed bill is issued a compounding charges under S. 152 of the Electricity Act,2003. It is therefore, the complaint may kindly be dismissed with the compensatory Cost of Rs. 10,000/-
5. We noticed that, the opponent filed its Written Version Exh. 11 along with affidavit Exh. 13 on 26/08/2009. Thereafter, the matter was kept for the evidence of the complainant. However, since then till today the complainant has not led her evidence. She and her Advocate are not present since 15/09/2011. Today also they are absent. Hence we proceeded to decide the matter as per the merit of it , vide S. 13(2) (c) of the C.P. Act, instead of dismissing it in default. We heard the learned Advocate Shri. Kailas Patil for the opponent. We gave thoughtful consideration to the argument made by him, which is appropriately referred in the subsequent paras..
6. The points for determination alongwith our findings thereon are as under.
Points Findings
- Whether this forum has jurisdiction to try
and entertain the complaint? … No
- What Order? … The complaint is dismissed.
REASONS
As to Point No. 1 :
7. The learned Adv. Shri. Kailas Patil for the opponent submitted that, the present matter is pertaining to the theft of the electricity. The complainant has suppressed the material facts from the forum. The disputed bill has been issued as the compounding charges for the theft of the electricity. He draw our attention to the fact that, the copy of the disputed bill, which is filed by the complainant herself at List Exh. 4/5 has clear mention of the fact that, the bill has been issued including the compounding charges for the offence of the theft of the electricity. On the inspection of the said bill we found substance in the submission of the learned counsel.
8. Besides, we found that, the opponent has also filed with list Exh.12, the Spot Inspection Report, Panchamana of the Scene, Admission of the Son of the complainant, Assessment Sheet, Bill for the theft of electricity. On the perusal of the above documentary evidence, it turns out that, this is a case of theft of electricity and consequential assessment. The assessment sheet filed with List Exh. 12/5 reflects that, assessment is made under S.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, in view of the recent decision dated 1/07/2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ U.P. Power Corporation Ltd and Ors V/s Anis Ahmad ‘ this forum is not having the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. Hence, we answer point no. 1 in negative.
As to Point No. 2 :
9. In view of the findings given as to point no. 1 in negative, it has become clear that, the disputed bill is the result of theft of the electricity and consequential assessment made under S.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As such, in view of the recent decision dated 1/07/2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ U.P. Power Corporation Ltd and Ors V/s Anis Ahmad ‘ this forum is not having the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The complaint will have to be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will have to bear their own cost. Hence, in an answer to point no. 2, we pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. The Complaint is dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own cost.
3. The copy of the judgment be given to the parties free of cost.
Milind S.Sonawane, President
Date : 25th Sept 2013 Chandrakant M. Yeshirao, Member
Jalgaon
