ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

            This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 138 of 2010.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party to issue amended electricity bill to the complainant after adjustment of the amount paid by the complainant and to recover accordingly. The District Forum has also directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and if the same is not possible then adjust         Rs. 5,000/- in electricity bill. 

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant-Sh. Ramesh Chandra had taken an electricity connection on 31.07.1998 and the electricity bills of the said connection had been paid regularly till the date 22.11.2004. The house of the complainant came in the boundary of newly dogged Gang Nahar and his house was demolished on 22.11.2004 and this resulted in disconnection of the said electricity connection.  The officials of the Electricity Department-opposite party has taken away all the electricity equipments like meter, cable etc., related to the electricity connection.  So no electricity was used by the complainant from 22.11.2004 to 17.02.2010. By mutual contract from Irrigation Department, the complainant had been allotted a plot, in which he built his house after two years, but the complainant did not take any electricity connection for this new house and no electricity was used by the complainant till 17.02.2010. But the opposite party was sending regular electricity bills for the disputed electricity connection.  On 21.09.2009, the opposite party sent an electricity bill for a sum of Rs. 28,271/- to the complainant, while the complainant said to correct the said bill, the opposite party-Electricity Department again sent a bill dated 23.11.2009 for a sum of          Rs. 29,176/- and another bill dated 20.01.2010 for a sum of Rs. 30,118/-.  Instead of rectifying the said bills, the opposite party installed an electricity meter in the new house of complainant and supplied electricity on the said electricity connection on 17.02.2010.  During departmental checking on 02.03.2010, the opposite party blamed that the complainant was using electricity by theft and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,376.80 ps.  Due to this act of the opposite party, the complainant suffered physical and mental agony and also financial loss. Therefore, due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

3.       The opposite party has filed written statement and pleaded that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is time barred and not maintainable before the District Forum.  The complainant has no locus standi to file and press the present complaint because the complaint is as old as 2004. However, the consumer complaint filed in the year 2010 after a gap of 6 years. As the complainant has stated that his Katia electric connection was regularized by the opposite party after depositing Rs. 600/-, but he has not furnished any documentary evidence in this regard.  The opposite party has further alleged that the complainant has stated to have paid the electric bill up to 22.11.2004, but he has not submitted any documentary evidence.  As the complainant has stated that on 22.11.2004, the complainant’s house come in the boundary of newly dogged Gang Nahar and his house was demolished and this resulted in disconnection of electricity.  The entire story is fabricated for filing the consumer complaint is a fairy tale and nothing else and there is no substantial ground on which the complaint can be maintained, since in case of demolition of house, as alleged by the complainant he should have fulfill the conditions of the permanent disconnection, which he did not do and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected.  The complainant has alleged that instead of waiving off the bills raised against his name, the opposite party provided him an electricity connection in his new house.  The above statement of the complainant is unbelievable, because without any knowledge about the new house of the complainant, how opposite party will provide the electricity connection to the complainant without demand and request.  The opposite party send the bills according to the consumption of the electricity and in case of any penalty the same is also levied as per the rules.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief, therefore, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, has allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 29.09.2010 in the above terms.  Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party-Electricity Department has filed the present appeal.

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent before this Commission.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant-Electricity Department has submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is against law and facts of the record.  The District Forum has erred in quashing of the impugned bill and directing to pay Rs. 5,000/- on mere asking and without any proof of suffering and damages. The District Forum has completely misdirected itself by ignoring the fact that on 25.02.2010, there was raid in the complainant-respondent’s premises and the respondent was found using electricity by laying jumper on the electric line of the appellant unauthorizedly committing theft of electricity as per provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for which an F.I.R. was lodged, and the criminal case No. 117 of 2010 has been lodged for theft.  There is no deficiency in service.  There is no error in the bill.  The District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint in the matter of Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 

7.       After perusal of the evidence and record, we are of the view that the dispute prima facie relates to theft and assessment of electricity.  In the case of Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012; U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anis Ahmad; III (2013) CPJ I (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The consumer complaints challenging electricity bills pertain to the unauthorized use and also assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not maintainable. Therefore, acts or person in indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” and, therefore, the “complaint” against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”.  In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anis Ahmad (supra), this consumer complaint challenging the electricity bill pertain to the unauthorized use, therefore, the District Forum has no power and jurisdiction to entertain the matter.  If there is any grievance, the consumer can have it redressed before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the Electricity Department.

8.       The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside.   

9.       In the above circumstances, the consumer complaint was not legally maintainable before the District Forum.  As a result the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.  The impugned order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

10.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and consumer complaint No. 138 of 2010 is dismissed.  No order as to costs.