The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the NESCO (Utility), Being represented through its Authority Signatory Executive Engineer (Electrical), Balasore Electrical Division, O.P No.2 is the NESCO (Utility), Being represented through its Authority Signatory Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical) Sub-Division No.1, Balia and O.P No.3 is the Junior Engineer (Electrical), NESCO Utility, Supply Section-III, Balia. 

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant being the legal married husband of Kiranabala Dey, who was a bonafide Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.C10-0113 with contract demand of 1 K.W, resides in the same premises along with his sons. But, the above said Consumer died on 17.05.2008 and thereafter, the Complainant is paying electricity bill to the O.Ps as per consumption. The O.Ps without any intimation to the Complainant and in absence of him, came to his premises on 05.08.2016 and served a spot verification report to one Kanchan Mohanty. From the said spot verification report, it is disclosed that the Complainant has unauthorisedly enhanced the load to the tune of 4.5 K.W instead of 1 K.W and also the Complainant was using a defective meter, the T.P box has no seal, the meter terminal cover has no seal and the meter body is intact lead sea, which is totally false and fabricated. With regard to the meter, admittedly the meter was/ is installed outside premises of the Complainant and according to provision U/s.56 (7) (iii) of I.E Act, 2003, Licensee shall be responsible for the safety of meter located outside the premises of the Consumer. Similarly, the O.Ps could not take permission from any Executive Magistrate to enter into the residential house of the Complainant to inspect the electrical instrument/ apparatus. Further, the O.Ps could not use any device to the meter for calculate the allegation of the enhanced electricity, then how they have presumed that the Complainant has been enhanced the load factor to 4.5 K.W instead of 1 K.W. On 15.09.2016, the O.Ps have been served a demand of dues to the Complainant of the August-2016 with calculating 4.5 K.W and demanding Rs.3,411/- (Rupees Three thousand four hundred eleven) only. Thus, the Complainant sent a notice to the O.P No.2 on 13.08.2016 for issuance of a tested meter at his own cost, but the O.P No.2 has not issued any order for deposit of cost or for supply of tested meter to the Complainant. Thereafter, the O.Ps on 18.09.2016 threatened the Complainant for payment of their demanding bills within one month or else, they will disconnect power supply to the premises of the Complainant. Cause of action to file this case arose on 18.09.2016. The Complainant has prayed for revision of demand dues for August, 2016 along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    3. Though the O.Ps have appeared in this case through their Advocate, but they have filed their written version beyond the statutory period, for which the written version filed by the O.Ps was not accepted. The O.Ps are also set ex-parte. Neither the O.Ps nor their Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    4. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that the O.Ps made spot verification in his premises on 05.08.2016 in his absence and also served a spot verification report to one Kanchan Mohanty. On perusal of the spot verification report, the Complainant came to know that the O.Ps have illegally and arbitrarily mentioned that he has unauthorisedly enhanced the load to the tune of 4.5 K.W instead of 1 K.W and also he was using a defective meter, the T.P box has no seal, the meter terminal cover has no seal and the meter body is intact lead sea. Thereafter, the O.Ps issued a demand of dues on 15.09.2016 to the Complainant for August-2016 amounting Rs.3,411/- (Rupees Three thousand four hundred eleven) only. Thus, the Complainant sent a notice to the O.P No.2 on 13.08.2016 for issuance of a tested meter at his own cost, but the O.P No.2 did not pay any heed to it and also the O.Ps on 18.09.2016 threatened the Complainant for payment of their demanding bills within one month or else, they will disconnect power supply to the premises of the Complainant. Thus the Complainant has filed this case praying for revision of demand dues along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the O.Ps are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier and neither the O.Ps nor their Advocate contested in hearing of this case. However, on perusal of the case record and documents available in it, we found that it is a case U/s.126 of Electricity Act-2003 for unauthorized use of electricity and there is an assessment, for which this case is not maintainable before this Consumer Forum and the Complainant has neither complied the assessment order made by the O.Ps nor appealed before the appellate authority, rather filed this case in this Forum. So, when there is an assessment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. However, in view of the authority reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that complaint against assessment made U/s.126 or action taken against those committing offences U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003, held, is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. Civil Court’s jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect to the decision of assessing Officer U/s.126 or with respect to a decision of the appellate authority U/s.127 is barred U/s.145 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, it is clear that 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, hence, also the complaint against any action taken under Sections-135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section-3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections-173, 174 and 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation 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.

                    5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority along with an application for condonation of delay, if desired/ required. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 26th day of March, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.