The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the S.D.O, Electrical Sub-Division, Soro, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the Executive Engineer, NESCO, Soro, Balasore.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant being a Consumer vide Consumer No.SI-66886 under the O.Ps, the electric connection was disconnected for last two years and as per request of the Complainant, the same was connected to the holding of the Complainant on 30.12.2013 and as per demand of O.Ps, the Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to the O.Ps. Accordingly, the bill supplied by the O.Ps for the period of January, 2014 to June, 2014 is Rs.844/- (Rupees Eight hundred forty four) only, Rs.141/- (Rupees one hundred forty one) only, Rs.215/- (Rupees Two hundred fifteen) only, Rs.252/- (Rupees Two hundred fifty two) only, Rs.300/- (Rupees Three hundred) only and Rs.125/- (Rupees one hundred twenty five) only respectively with arrear bill of Rs.13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand) only. The O.P No.1 in the absence of the Complainant prepared a verification list illegally and disconnected Power supply on spot and sent a notice along with verification report imposing penal bill amounting to Rs.1,23,294/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty three thousand two hundred ninety four) only with an additional security deposit of Rs.9,821/- (Rupees Nine thousand eight hundred twenty one) only. Thus, the Complainant requested O.P No.1 for reconnection of electric power supply, but the O.P No.1 refused to reconnect electric supply without recovering the penal amount. The O.P No.1 has prepared verification report of his own mentioning "Consumer refused to sign" and the penal bill imposed is arbitrary as well as unauthorised. Disconnection of power supply by them to the premises of the Complainant causes mental agony to the Complainant, thus the Complainant has filed this case for adequate relief. The Complainant has prayed for reconnection, exemption of penal bill, revision of arrear bill along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.
3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate, where they have denied on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action and disclosing that the Complainant was availing power supply by two nos. of hooking i.e. one for welding shop and other is for medical clinic unauthorisedly to the tune of 3.5 K.W (Com) against the C.D of 0.5 K.W (Com) as per verification report dt.23.06.2014 conducted by NESCO verification team and necessary consequential action has been taken due to unauthorised use of electricity. On the basis of spot verification report dt.23.06.2014, provisional assessment was made on 26.06.2014 amounting Rs.1,23,294/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty three thousand two hundred ninety four) only with an additional security deposit of Rs.9,821/- (Rupees Nine thousand eight hundred twenty one) only according to the provision U/s.126 of Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorised use of Electricity by the Complainant. Accordingly, final assessment has been made vide letter No.858, dt.21.07.2014 amounting Rs.33,100/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand one hundred) only against the Complainant. Moreover, a 'complaint' against the assessment made by Assessing Officer U/s.126 or against the offences committed U/s.135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.
4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?
(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. At the time of re-hearing of this case, neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present. However, from the materials and pleading, it shows that though the Complainant was paying his electric bills regularly like Rs.844/- (Rupees Eight hundred forty four) only, Rs.141/- (Rupees one hundred forty one) only, Rs.215/- (Rupees Two hundred fifteen) only, Rs.252/- (Rupees Two hundred fifty two) only, Rs.300/- (Rupees Three hundred) only and Rs.125/- (Rupees one hundred twenty five) only for the months of January, 2014 to June, 2014 respectively, an arrear bill of Rs.13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand) only was also issued by the O.Ps to the Complainant. The O.P No.1 in the absence of the Complainant prepared a verification list illegally and disconnected Power supply on spot and a bill of Rs.1,23,294/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty three thousand two hundred ninety four) only was imposed on him with an additional security deposit of Rs.9,821/- (Rupees Nine thousand eight hundred twenty one) only. After several requests by the Complainant to the O.Ps when he failed, he has filed this case in the Forum praying for reconnection of power supply to his premises, exemption of penal bill, revision of arrear bill along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that the Complainant was availing power supply to his premises by two nos. of hooking i.e. one for welding shop and other is for medical clinic unauthorisedly to the tune of 3.5 K.W (Com) against the C.D of 0.5 K.W (Com) as per verification report dt.23.06.2014 conducted by NESCO verification team. Thereafter, on the basis of spot verification report, provisional assessment was made on 26.06.2014 U/s.126 of Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorised use of Electricity to the tune of Rs.1,23,294/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty three thousand two hundred ninety four) only with an additional security deposit of Rs.9,821/- (Rupees Nine thousand eight hundred twenty one) only and final assessment has been made to the tune of Rs.33,100/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand one hundred) only against the Complainant. So, this case is not maintainable before this Forum and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. In view of authority reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, where in 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.
6. 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 contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 16th day of October, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
