1.        These appeals arise out of the order dated 26/11/2007, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati, partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing no. 04 of 2005 and thereby cancelling the disputed bill of Rs. 1,32,339/- dated 04/01/2005, issued by the OP, MSEB/appellant in appeal no.16 of 2008 as being illegal however further observing that the complainant is liable to pay the corrected bill issued by the OP as the complainant has created certain confusion and suspicion.

2.        The Forum has further held that a corrected bill of Rs. 76,170/- that is 50 percent of the disputed bill of Rs. 1,32,339/- be issued which would be just and proper, and such corrected bill would be after deducting Rs. 44,000/- which is already paid by the complainant be issued to him.

3.        Appellant, MSEDCL in appeal no. 16 of 2008, is referred as OP and appellant Nidoz Restaurant and Bar through its partner, Rajkumar Chotumal Ratnani in appeal no. 110 of 2008 is referred as complainant for the sake of brevity.

4.        Being not satisfied and being aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant and OP have filed these appeals and since both these appeals arise out of the same order, we proceed to decide these appeals by this common order.

5.        Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as under.

Complainant Rajkumar Chotumal Ratnani is the partner of  Nidoz Restaurant and Bar and is running a business of Hoteling and is having electricity connection at his Hotel and his consumer no. is 366470557359. On 03/01/2005 the OP, MSEDCL visited the restaurant premises of the complainant and checked the electric meter and prepared Spot Inspection Report and recorded in the said report that the meter was running 60.65 percent slow. The OP removed the electric meter on 04/01/2005 and then issued bill of Rs. 1,32,339/- towards electricity consumption on 07/01/2005. It is the contention of the complainant that he has been regularly paying the bills issued by the OP towards electricity consumption till January 2004 and so far he has been given bill towards electricity consumption at an average of Rs. 3,000 to 4,000/- It is further contended by the complainant that neither Panchanama was prepared at the time of removing the electric meter nor the complainant was informed that the disputed bill was issued after detecting theft of electricity. Therefore alleging deficiency in service he filed a consumer complaint seeking restoration of electricity supply, quashing of the disputed bill of Rs. 1,32,339/-, Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for loss sustained by the complainant  due to disconnection and Rs. 5,000/- more towards cost of proceedings.

6.        The OP, MSEDCL resisted the complaint by filing its written version and recorded its preliminary objection in respect of the complainant being not the consumer of the OP since the bill issued by it was in the name of Hasatram Govindram Sorjani and the complainant Rajkumar has failed to bring on record any relationship either contractual or beneficial with the consumer. The OP further submitted that since the impugned bill was issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint. The OP denied all the adverse allegations made in the complainant.

7.        The Forum after hearing both the sides and perusing the documents filed by both the parties on record, allowed the complaint as aforesaid. Therefore these appeals.

8.        We heard counsels for both the sides and perused the written notes of arguments filed by them. We also perused the copy of the complaint, written version, spot inspection report, copy of Panchnama, copy of the disputed bills and other documents filed on record. The spot Inspection Report clearly reflects that it is recorded in the observation as “meter box seals tampered” and “the meter is recording 60.65 percent less consumption.” The said spot inspection Report is signed and counter signed by the representative of the complainant and the OP. On perusal of the disputed bills of Rs. 1,32,339/- dated 07/01/2005 it reflects that the bill is assessed for theft of electricity as per the report of Flying Squad. Therefore undisputedly the dispute arises out of the bill issued by MSEDCL assessed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

9.        These appeals were heard finally and were fixed for judgment on 05/03/2014.  Counsel for the complainant filed a pursis with copy of the judgment dated 25/06/2010 passed by the Special Court at Amravati (Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge) in the matter of  Special Case no. 04 of 2007 MSEB Vs. Hasatram and others- for offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of Electricity Act, whereby the complainant/ Accused therein are acquitted of the offences. Therefore undisputedly the dispute results from the electricity bill assessed under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003.  

10.                     In a judgment of the Apex Court passed on 01/07/13 in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) no. 35906 of 2011– UP Power Corporation Limited and Others Vs. Anis Ahamed, where it is specifically held that a Consumer Complaint is not maintainable where action under Sections 135 to 140 of Electricity Act 2003 is contemplated.

11.                      In view of this settled position of law, the facts of this case squarely fall within the purview of the case referred above. Therefore the Consumer Complaint is rendered not maintainable and for the forgoing reason appeal bearing no 110 of 2008 filed by the complainant, Nidoz Restaurant and Bar, deserves to be dismissed and appeal bearing no. 16 of 2008 filed by MSEDCL deserves to be allowed.

12.                     In the result we pass the following order.

ORDER