SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-

             Deficiency in service on respect of  providing inflated energy bill and illegal conduct of physical verification in the complainant’s premises are  the allegations arrayed against ops.

2.                    Complaint in brief reveals that complainant’s deceased father namely Sadhu Charan das is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing No.DKC-0157780 with a contact load of 1 KW. It is alleged that since the year 2004to August-2015 complainant was paying  energy dues regularly and the monthly consumption was very low. But in the month of September,2015 when the complainant received the monthly bill became astonished by verifying that Rs.905.48 has been imposed as charges of monthly energy bills. Accordingly, a written complaint was lodged before SDO(Elec.),Electrical Sub-Division,Kendrapara for necessary correction in the monthly energy bills, but such attempt went in vain. Such non-compliance of written complaint gives mental agony and financial loss to the complainant for which the complaint before the Forum. It is further stated that the cause of action of the instant case arose on dtd.21.09.15 when the complainant received the arbitrary energy bill and also the Ops threatened to disconnect the power supply on non-payment of illegal and arbitrary amount. The complainant is filed before this Forum with prayer of seeking direction to the Forum to correct the bill dtd. 21.09.15, not to disconnect the power supply and to serve the energy bill on actual consumption basis and Rs.10,000/- be awarded as compensation for mental agony with cost of litigation.

3.                   Being noticed Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed joint written version challenging the maintainability of the complaint U/S-145 of I.E.Act,2003 and in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of U.P.Power    Corporation  and Others  vrs Anish Ahemed reported in O.L.R.2014(1) SC-68. Ops narrating the facts of the dispute averred that complainant’s father Sadhu Charan Das is a domestic category of consumer under OPs bearing No. 0157780.Complainant’s premises was physically verified by CESU authorities on dtd.24.08.15 and PVR(physical verification report) disscloses that the complainant was availing power supply by mechanical meter having tilted condition. At the time of agreement the contact demand was 1 KW, but on PVR it was found that the contact demand has been enhanced from 1 KW to 1.5KW. The PVR was conducted in the presence of complainant, who put his signature and from the PVR it was a clear case of meter by passing and tampering. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer U/S-126 of I.E.Act,2003 passed provisional assessment and a sum of Rs.19,814/- was imposed as unauthorized consumption. The copy of the PVR and Provisional Assessment order is filed into the dispute as Annexure A & B. It is further averred that if the consumer does not file any show cause within 7 days of provisional assessment same will be treat as final assessment. As per the data base information of the Ops the meter serial No. is OEL 5364558, but at the time of PVR the meter serial no. was 9173795. On the aforesaid circumstances, the Ops have acted in accordance with law and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such type of complaint U/S-174-175 of I.E.Act,2003. Accordingly, the complaint is to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

 4.            Heard, the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for Ops and complainant in person also examined the documents like attested photo copies of monthly energy bills, photo copy of letter addressed to SDO(Elec.),photo copies of PVR and meter replacement notice etc. filed by the complainant. Ops in their favour filed attested Xerox copy of PVR, provisional assessment and statement of account of complainant-consumer. The admitted fact of the case are that complainant’s deceased father was a domestic category of consumer under  Ops bearing  Consumer No.DKC-5282 which correspondence to new consumer A/C No.0157780. It is also admitted that after death of consumer Sri Sadhu charan das  his son is enjoying the power supply to the same premises having the same consumer no. with a contact demand of 1 KW.

                        Complaint is filed for allegation of imposition of illegal monthly energy bill which was served on the month of September,2015 to the tune of Rs.906.00 according to complainant it is illegal and arbitrary having without any basis though the complainant was paying a very low amount in earlier months. Complainant protested by way of written letter to SDE(Elec.),Kendrapara, but all went in vain and the Ops are threatening to disconnect the power supply on non-payment of illegal and arbitrary amount. On the other side Ops resisted the allegations with pleas that on physical verification by CESU authorities on dtd.24.08.2015. It is detected that complainant is availing power supply by mechanical meter having titled condition, which is tampering of meter and the physical verification  is conducted in the presence of the complainant, who put the signature in physical verification report(PVR). Accordingly after enhancement of the connected load and as per the provisions an assessment was made to pay Rs.19,814/- as penal charges.

                      Considering the allegation and counter allegation it is clear that enhanced monthly energy bill and imposition of penal amount are due to physical verification conducted by OP-authorities, on dtd.24.08.2015. But from the letter addressed to OP-authorities by complainant discloses that a physical verification was conducted by OP-authorities on dtd.24.08.15 which according to complainant is illegal and request the authorities to consider his grievance. The copy of the letter is produced by complainant supported by an affidavit, the copy of the affidavit is also duly acknowledged by Ops. Nothing is revealed from the side of the Ops in the written statement and in respect of result of the complainant’s letter addressed to Ops. Neither theacknowledgement of the letter nor the consideration or rejection of letter is produced before this Forum. It appears from the letter that on the same date of physical verification complainant put his grievance before OP-authorities. The Officer received the letter with official seal and signature with a direction to subordinate officer to enquire and report. It is clear that without considering or rejecting the petition of the complainant Ops started action under I.E.Act,2003. In this aspect the legitimate right of a consumer like complainant which has conferred to a consumer under C.P.Act,1986 has not been complied by the OP-authorities the objective of Act is failed in the instant case.

           The counter allegation of Ops are that as on dtd.24.08.15 when the physical verification is conducted in complainant’s premises it was found that the mechanical meter is ‘titled’ which is a ‘theft of energy’ and U/S-126 of I.E.Act,2003, the complaint is not maintainable. Ops also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of UP Power Corpn.Ltd.-Vrs-Annes Ahemed. Further in this regard Hon’ble National Commission in case of Walmik-Vrs-Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. reported in 2015(1) PART-3 CPR,pg.647 opined that in case of allegation of theft of energy Consumer Forum  lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and Forum is to keep his hands off in the matter, leaving it to the aggrieved person to approach on appropriate authority. In this case the penalty on complainant has been imposed on the complainant for theft of energy in view of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and National Commission this Forum is restrained to pass any comment on allegation of theft energy. But so far the non-response of letter addressed to the Ops by the complainant is certainly a deficiency in service in part of the Ops, citing the said decision of Honbl’e National Commission on Walmik vrs Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Honbl’e National Commission equally opined in complaint of ‘ Theft of energy’ that “xxxxxxx the competence to enquire into the allegations made in the complaint would arise only if the complaint is otherwise within the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum- - -  - - - - ’’. In the instant case complaint is deprived of his legimate right, when Ops did not response the application of the complainant and without any intimation imposed provisional assessnet. The case law cited and discussed here is a befitting to the instant case. The essence of the decision is that if a consumer complaint contains allegation of ‘theft of energy’ with other grievances, the consumer Forum lacks the Jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter related to ‘theft of energy’. But the Forum is free to decide other grievances contains in the complainant.

                          Accordingly, it is directed that Ops will consider the application of the complainant-consumer and treat the same as an application filed U/S 126(4) of the I.E. Act-2003. One month time is given to the Ops to dispose of the application from receipt of the Order, failing which action will be intimated as per the law. After disposal of the application if the complainant –consumer is not satisfied on the decision, complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate authority as per the I.E.Act-2003 and as per regulation of O.E.R.C.2004. Accordingly, the I.A. misc case No. 3/16 is hereby is disposed with a direction that ops will not take any coercive action against the complainant till disposal of the application.

                                  Complainant is allowed in part on contest without cost.

        Pronounced in the open Court, this the   28th  Day of December, 2016.