The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the S.D.O, Electricals, Jamsuli and O.P No.2 is the J.E, Electrical (NESCO), Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a domestic Consumer under the O.Ps bearing New A/c No.332201040043 and old A/c No.KBD-0044 with a contract load of 1.5 K.W and was paying his electric bills regularly. The Complainant had received electric bills for the months of April, May, June, August, September-2015 amounting to Rs.148/- (Rupees One hundred forty eight) only, Rs.683/- (Rupees Six hundred eighty three) only, Rs.150/- (Rupees One hundred fifty) only, Rs.240/- (Rupees Two hundred forty) only and Rs.383/- (Rupees Three hundred eighty three) only respectively. Then the Complainant suddenly received electric bill for the month of January-2016 amounting to Rs.23,564/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand five hundred sixty four) only and for the month of February-2016 amounting to Rs.23,944/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand nine hundred forty four) only. The Complainant has submitted that the O.Ps enhanced the electric bill owing to intentional grudge for the F.I.R previously lodged against the O.Ps by the Complainant's brother named Baikuntha Mohanty regarding the death of Jorsey cow on 21.06.2015 as the cow came in contact with the Electric iron pole, then the case was registered and an enquiry was made. However, a compromise was done between the brother of the Complainant and the O.Ps. Despite the compromise, the O.Ps bore grudge against the Complainant without any reason and enhanced the electric bill. The Complainant had given an Advocate notice on 21.04.2016 to the O.Ps by giving one month time. The O.P No.2 received the notice and O.P No.1 did not receive it. But, the O.Ps have not complied to the said notice. The cause of action arose on 21.05.2016. The Complainant has prayed for revision of electric bills of January-2016 and February-2016 onwards along with compensation. The Complainant as well as his Advocate are absent and not participated in hearing of this case.

                    3. The O.Ps are set ex-parte and neither the O.Ps nor their Advocate are present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    4. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case, rather the Advocate for Complainant was present later. So, the pleading of the Complainant remains as it is. According to his pleading, he has regularly received the electric bills and was paying the same accordingly. But, he has suddenly received electric bill for the month of January-2016 amounting to Rs.23,564/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand five hundred sixty four) only and for the month of February-2016 amounting to Rs.23,944/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand nine hundred forty four) only. Further, the Complainant has submitted that the O.Ps enhanced the electric bill for their intentional grudge for the F.I.R previously lodged against the O.Ps by the Complainant's brother regarding the death of a Jorsey cow on 21.06.2015 of his brother as the cow came in contact with the Electric iron pole. Then, the case was registered and an enquiry was made and thereafter, a compromise was done between the brother of the Complainant and the O.Ps. Despite the compromise, the O.Ps intentionally enhanced the electric bill of the Complainant without any reason. Thus, the Complainant served Advocate notice on 21.04.2016 to the O.Ps for correction of his disputed electric bills, but the O.P No.1 did not receive it. The O.P No.2 has received the notice, but he has not complied the said notice till yet. Thus, the Complainant has filed this case before this Forum praying for revision of electric bills of January-2016 and February-2016 onwards along with compensation. On the other hand, the O.Ps are set ex-parte and neither the O.Ps nor their Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case. However, the O.Ps have filed the copy of Spot verification report, Provisional assessment order and Final assessment order in this case earlier. So, it clearly shows that there is an assessment and when there is an assessment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority as per the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad. In such case, it has been held 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.

                    5. 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 ex-parte against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 13th day of March, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.