SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)       

            The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-12 of C.P. Act, 1986, (here-in- after called as the “Act”), on dated 13.06.2016, alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the NESCO, represented through its Executive Engineer, OP No.2 is the Executive Engineer, BED, OP No.3 is the SDO, Electrical Sub-Division (Supply) and OP No.4 is the Section Officer, Section-2. As per the complainant’s petition, the cause of action arose on 10.06.2016.  

2.         The case of the complainant, in a nutshell, is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer under the Opp Parties. The complainant, in order to hold her business on DTP and to maintain her family out of the income of such business, occupied one pucca house located in Mouza Mansing Bazar by executing one deed of lease-cum-house rent agreement with one Damayanti Panda. On being approached, the Ops supplied electricity to her premises on 4.6.2016.

3.         It is the further case of the complainant that on 10.6.2016, the opposite parties, without any intimation, disconnected the electricity supply, removed the electric meter from the wall and took away the same. On being protest made by the complainant, they did not listen. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint before the OP No.2 with a request to restore the electricity supply to her shop room, but in vain. Such act of the Ops, prima facie, found to be intentional and oblique motive so also complete violation of the mandate of law. It is further averred that for such illegal and unauthorized disconnection of electricity to her premises since 10.6.2016, the complainant sustained a lot of inconvenience and her business became stall in absence of electricity. Further, she not only sustained loss from her business, but also sustained mental agony for which she claimed Rs.5,000.00 towards loss in her business and Rs.50,000.00 towards her mental agony, torture and sufferings. Therefore, the complainant, finding no other way out, constrained to file the complaint alleging about deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Hence, this case.

To substantiate her case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record -

1. Photocopy of NESCO utility new service connection form.
2. Photocopy of NESCO utility demand note dated 4.6.2016.
3. Photocopy of NESCO utility new connection report.
4. Photocopy of the office copy of written grievance submitted to OP No.2.
5. Photocopy of house rent agreement dated 28.5.2015.

4.         In the present case, the Ops have appeared on 29.6.2016 after being receipt of notices issued against them but filed their written version on 31.7.2017, beyond statutory period, hence, their written version has not been accepted. But during the course of hearing, they have produced the following documents, which are placed in the record -

1. Photocopy of provisional assessment order No.1852 dated 2.6.2016.
2. Photocopy of spot verification report.
3. Photocopy of declaration of the complainant.
4. Photocopy of new service connection form.
5. Photocopy of connection report and receipts.
6. Photocopy of Khatiyan.
7. Photocopy of work order in favour of FEDCO.
8. Photocopy of FIR dated 24.5.2016.
9. Photocopy of FIR dated 30.5.2016.

5.         In view of the above averments, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
3. Whether the present case is maintainable?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP towards the complainant?
5. To what other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to?

F I N D I N G S

6.         First of all, it is to be decided as to whether the complainant is a consumer under the Ops or not.  It is the case of the complainant that she, being the consumer bearing No.53954, availed electricity supply to her premises for the purpose of her business since 4.6.2016. To substantiate her case, she has produced documents vide Annexure-1 to 3 to show that the Ops have supplied electricity to her premises. From the above, it is clearly established that the complainant is a consumer.

7.         For the shake of convenience and better appreciation, issue No.ii to v are taken up together. Before delve into the merit of the case, it is felt necessary to discuss as to why the Ops have disconnected the electricity supply to the premises of the complainant. The complainant has specifically stated in her complaint petition that on 10.6.2016 at about 11.00 AM all on a sudden and without any prior intimation, the OP No.3 & 4 along with others had been to her shop room and without any reason they disconnected the electricity supply and thereafter removed the meter and electric wire and took away the same. Thereafter, she complained before OP No.2 with a request to restore the electric supply immediately, but the OP No.2 remained silent. Mainly, the complainant has urged regarding unauthorized disconnection of electricity supply by the Ops to her business establishment. But the complainant is silent about the reason for disconnection of electricity supply to her business premises.

8.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has submitted, inter alia, that the complainant is a consumer under them and she has applied for supply of electricity of single phase and required load up to 1.00 KW to her business establishment (as per Annexure-4,5,6). On 24.5.2016, their authorized officials during their routine check detected the business establishment of the complainant was availing power supply illegally and unauthorizedly by way of hooking process from the existing nearby LT line without any authority from the Ops. Further, during verification, in presence of the son of the complainant, it was found that the complainant used to consume power supply to the tune of 5.5 KW, whereas she was permitted to avail 1.00 KW. Accordingly, verification report was prepared at the spot which was denied to be received by the son of the complainant and thus, a copy of the verification report was affixed at the main entrance. For the purpose, an FIR was lodged against the complainant on behalf of the Ops before the Energy Police Station, Balasore (vide Annexure-8). Thereafter, basing upon the spot verification report, a provisional assessment order along with other documents was sent to the complainant for depositing a sum of Rs.4,09,298.00. That apart, in spite of disconnection of power supply to the premises of the complainant, on 30.5.2016, the officials of the Ops found that the complainant again unauthorizedly used the electricity to the self-same premises forcibly by reconnecting the disconnected wire for which another FIR was lodged against her for theft of electric energy (vide Annexure-9). The complainant has not preferred any appeal before the appropriate authority, rather to knock the door of this Commission, who has no jurisdiction to sit over the matter.

9.         In the above premises, it is to be decided as to whether the complaint of the complainant is maintainable and is there any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops towards the complainant.

In this context, 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 GRF. From the foregoing discussions, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. Consequently, deficiency of service on the part of the Ops does not arise at all.

            Hence, it is ordered –

O R D E R

            The complaint of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no cost.                         

            Given under my hand and seal of this Commission, this the 6^th day of June, 2023.