C.C. No. 1349/2009 Received on : 31/08/2009 Admitted on : 31/08/2009 Decided on : 25/09/2013
Exh. : 20
Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalgaon
Before: Milind S. Sonawane, President.
Chandrakant M. Yeshirao, Member.
Namdeo Maharu Mali ( Dead)
Through his L.R.
Sukalal Namdeo Mali,
Age: 65 years Occur. Pensioner,
R/o Goroba Chauk, Pimprala,
Tal. Dist. Jalgaon. …. Complainant
V/s
1. Deputy Executive Engineer,
M.S.E.D.C.L,
City Sub- division No.2,
Tal. Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Junior Engineer,
M.S.E.D.C.L,
Pimprala (2),
Jalgaon. …. Opponents
Adv. Shri. B.B. Sali 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. 11,800/- dated 25/08/2009 issued by the opponent be declared as unlawful and cancelled.
2. It is the case of the complaint that, on 07/06/2009 there had been a short circuit in the service wire and therefore his meter was burnt. On 26/06/2009, on the demand of the opponents, he had paid Rs.700/- towards the meter damage cost. On that day, the officials of the opponents obtained his signature on blank forms and certain papers.
3. The Complaint further states that, on 28/08/2009, surprisingly the opponents issued him a bill of Rs. 11,800/-. The opponents also demanded the above referred meter damage charges in the said bill, though he had already paid it. The opponents along with other charges also indicated Rs. 8000/- towards the compounding charges in the said bill. In fact because of the short circuit in the service wire, the meter was burnt. The opponents are responsible for it. But despite of that, fact, they have issued the above referred unlawful bill to him. According to the complainant, it is the unfair trade practices on the part of the opponents. As such, he has prayed that, the bill dated 28/08/2009 of Rs. 11,800/- may kindly be declared as unlawful and cancelled accordingly.
4. The opponent appeared in the matter. They filed Written Version at Exh. 12 and resisted the claim of the complainant. According to them, the complainant has committed the theft of the Electricity. This forum his not having jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, in view of the provision of Section of 145 of the Electricity Act 2003. On 08/08/2009 Junior Engineer Shri. Anil Patil visited the house of the complainant. He found that, the seal of the meter of the complainant was tampered. He seized the meter. The panchanama of the same was prepared. The meter was, then sent for the inspection. On the detail Inspection of the meter, it was found that, the inner P.C.B. circuit was re-soldered. The inspection report was also given to the complainant. Accordingly, the alleged bill was issued to the complainant for compounding changes vide Section 152, of the Electricity Act. As such, the bill, according to the opponents, is and was result of the compounding of the offence of the theft of Electricity. It is therefore, the complaint may kindly be dismissed with the compensatory Cost of Rs. 10,000/-
5. We heard the learned Advocate Shri. Kailas Patil for the opponent. The learned Advocate Shri. B.B.Sali for the complainant was not present. But he has filed pursis Exh.18 on 17.10.2011 that, the affidavit of the evidence of the complainant filed on 10.10.2011 may kindly be considered as his argument. We gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments made from both the sides.
6. The points for determination along with 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 opponents 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 himself at List Exh. 6/2 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 opponents have also filed with List Exh.13, the Spot Inspection Panchanama, Panchamana of the Meter, Meter Replacement Report, Intimation given to complainant to remain present for the inspection of the Meter, Meter Inspection Report, Assessment Sheet, Demand Letter of bill for the theft of electricity, Bill. 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. 13/6 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. It will have to be dismissed. Consequently the injunction order passed in favour of the complainant below Exh. 4 dated 2/09/2009 will have to be vacated. 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 injunction order passed Below Exh. 4 dated 2/09/2009 is vacated.
4. The copy of the judgment is given to the parties free of cost.
Milind S.Sonawane, President
Date: 25th Sept 2013 Chandrakant M. Yeshirao, Member
Jalgaon
