Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant was using electricity in his rice huller by taking supply from the OPs. It is alleged inter alia that the bills were being prepared on load factor basis. On receiving such bill the complainant requested to the OPs to install the meter and prepare the bill as per the actual consumption. Complainant applied for revision of the bill, but OPs did not listen to it. Finding no other way, showing deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, consumer complaint was filed.
4. OPs filed written version stating that on 28.5.2005 the Vigilance squad found that the complainant was using electricity by taking power supply by hooking process. Thereafter, penal assessment was made and after necessary formalities the final assessment was made. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
5. After hearingboth the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxxxxxxxx
The OPs are directed to cancel the penal bill of Rs.6,115/- and issue a fresh revised bill from the month of September, 2002 till date as per meter reading deducting the amount of Rs.6,115/- and to adjust the amount which is already paid by the complainant, return the remaining amount to the complainant if any within one month of receipt of this order along with Rs.2,000/- towards cost and compensation.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him the complainant was using electricity by hooking process. The complainant is liable to pay more charges because the allegation is very strong enough and it cannot be left easily. He submitted that since all the documents are available, he prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order including the DFR.
8. No doubt the complainant has got a rice mill. The verification report shows that the Vigilance Squad verified the premises of the complainant and found that the complainant was using electricity by hooking process. The document of penal bill was served on the complainant. Not only this but also the final bill was also served on the complainant. In such case as per the decision of Hon’ble SupremeCourt of India in U.P.PowerCorporation Ltd and others vrs. Anis Ahmad AIR 2013 Suprme Court 2766c the consumer complaint is not maintainable before the learned District Forum.
9. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we find that the consumer complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.
10. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
