(Passed on 15/1/2024)

Per Mr. Sachin Vinodkumar Jaiswal, Hon’ble Member

1. The complainant had filed a present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 claiming relief as mentioned in prayer clause of the complaint. The brief fact of the case are as under.
2. That the complainant  resides at Mauja Korpana, Tahasil Korpana, District Chandrapur along with his family and had purchased a plot bearing No. 39 in survey No. 25/2B and wanted to construct a residential house on that plot and had taken a permission from Nagar Panchayat, Korpana in 2021 and resides with his family at the mentioned address.
3. The OP Nos. 1 to 5 are MSEDCL and their local office and officers. The complainant had made prescribed application with OP for electric meter and on 21/01/2022, the electric  meter with consumer No. 456034903119 had been allotted to the complainant and started the electricity supply to the complainant.
4. It is further submitted by the complainant that on 30/07/2022, the Ops had conducted the electricity theft enquiry at the complainant’s  above said meter and  found that there was theft on meter of the complainant. The complainant submitted that the theft had been done by one Mr. Tulsiram Motiram  Rathod and complainant had compounded an offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 and paid the assessed amount by OP along with compounding charges which had been filed by the complainant along with his complaint at document No. 4,5,6 and 7.
5. The electricity supply of the complainant had been disconnected on the date of assessment of theft that is on 30/07/2022 and after making a payment of assessment by complainant on 4/8/2022, the complainant made a detailed application to the Ops for restoring his power supply but the Ops failed to do so even after the expiry of 8 months and therefore, the complainant approached this Commission for deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.
6. The complainant further submitted that even after the payment of assessed amount and regular follow-up, the Ops had not restored their electric supply as well as the bills sent to the complainant even after  disconnection till April 2023 bears an endorsement of temporary disconnection but from April onwards, it has noting of permanent disconnection of electricity supply, this further amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.
7. The complainant further submits that the Ops were the only electric supply operator in the region. The complainant had no choice but to approach the Ops for restoring their electricity supply.
8. The complainant prayed for compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and his family because of the act of Ops as well as restoration of electric supply.
9. The complainant along with complaint had also filed interim application for restoration of their electric supply but later on not pressed that application. Therefore no order had been passed on  the same application.
10. The Ops. Nos. 1 to 3 though being served, failed to appear before this Commission and therefore the matter had been proceeded exparte against the OP Nos. 1 to 3 on 15/06/2023.
11. The OP Nos. 4 and 5 appeared but failed to file their reply beyond 45 days and therefore their reply had  not been taken on record. Hence the pleadings made by OP Nos. 4 and 5 in their reply could not be considered and taken on record.
12.  We heard both counsels at length. The complainant argued that the offence Section 135 had been compounded and they  were before the Commission for non restoration of power supply by the Ops. The complainant further submits that the entire claim of theirs were for unfair trade practice by the OP and deficient  service on the part of OP Nos. 1 to 5 by not restoration of  power supply of the complainant even after getting compounded assessed amount from the complainant. The complainant brought to our notice that the complainant had paid assessed amount on 4/8/2022 even after that the OP Nos. 1 to 5 had not restored their power supply. The complainant had filed on record the conditions of supply based on the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations 2005. “The power supply of consumer shall be reconnect only after the full payment of the assessed amount within  48 hours” but in the present matter the same regulations could not be applicable as the assessed amount had been deposited after 5 days of assessment. The complainant further submits that the entire family of the complainant had been living without electric supply since August 2023 till today because of the lethargic and high headed approach of the OP Nos. 1 to 5. The complainant submits that  power supply of the complainant’s house for electric meter bearing No. 456034903119   be restored and it will be declared that the Ops were indulged in unfair trade practice and deficient to provide service to the complainant.
13. The complainant relied on the following citation in support of their claim.

I. Nesco & Anr. Vs. Baburam Behera, III(2014) CPJ 15 (Odi.)

2.  Ishwar Singh Vs. Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., II(2011) CPJ 18 (NC)

14. The counsels for OP Nos. 4 and 5 submits that this Commission has  no jurisdiction to try and entertained this complaint as it is arising out of theft under Section 135 of Maharashtra Electricity Act, 2003 and Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically said  in UP Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Anis Ahmad, III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC)  In   that case, in case of  theft, the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try the matter. The OP Nos. 4 and 5 further submitted that the complainant  being an employee of Ops had taken the connection with his reference and were involved in theft. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
15. We find that the OP being in the monopoly business had acted arbitrarily for not restoring the electric supply of the complainant even after pocketing the amount of assessment as well as compounding charges. The question being that whether the  present Commission has jurisdiction to try the present complaint as a theft under Section 35 of Electricity Act, 2003 had been committed but the issue to be ascertained by the Commission is not related to the theft but for deficiency in service by the Ops as well as the unfair trade practice on the part of OP has to be decided. Therefore, as the present Commission has no jurisdiction to try the electricity Act matters related to Section 135. The present complaint is not covered under that bar. We find that the OP Nos. 1 to 5 were indulged in unfair trade practice as well as  deficient in providing services to the complainant for not restoring the electric supply of the complainant for last 16 months and keeping the entire family of the complainant without power supply. As per Section 43 of Maharashtra Electricity Act, 2003, the Ops are under obligation to restored the disconnected electric supply  within 30 days from the date of payment of assessed amount and in case of failure, the Ops are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per day to the consumer. We pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the OP Nos. 1 to 5 are indulged in unfair trade practice and deficient in providing services to the complainant.
3. The OP Nos. 1 to 5 should restore the electric supply of the complainant for Consumer meter bearing No. 456034903119 within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this order and should file the compliance report  before this Commission within 15 days.
4. The OP Nos. 1 to 5 are hereby directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and harassment  to the complainant and his entire family as well as Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
5. If the restoration of electric supply has not been restored within stipulated period as mentioned in para 3 of operative order, the OP Nos. 1 to 5 should pay penal amount of Rs. 25,000/- over and above the amount mentioned in para 4 of the operative part of order.  
6. Copy of order be furnished to both parties, free of cost.