Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. This appeal is filed by the original opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3 against the order dtd.31.12.2004, passed by Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint bearing No.86/2003, by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the original complainant / respondent herein, as set out by him in his original complaint, in brief is as under.
The complainant obtained electric connection from opposite party No.1 to his residential house. He regularly pad all the bills till disputed bill was issued by the opposite party for Rs.25,252/- on 15.09.2003. The consumption shown in the said bill was excessive and bill also did not show the details of the said consumption, date of issuance and reading etc. There is allegation of theft in the said bill. But intimation of theft was never given to the complainant. No action was taken against him for the offence of theft punishable under Indian Electricity Act. The opposite party No.3 had taken out the said meter from the house of the complainant on 03.09.2003 as there was no good terms of the complainant with opposite party No.3. The said meter was taken out in the absence of the complainant by the opposite party No.3. The complainant then approached opposite party No.3 to make an enquiry about it and thereupon opposite party No.3 installed new meter on 04.09.2003. The opposite party No.2 directed the complainant to pay at least 50% amount of that bill or otherwise face the consequences. The opposite party never issued any notice to the complainant as contemplated under Electricity Act, 1910 nor the opposite party referred the matter to the Electrical Inspector before issuing the bill of Rs.25,252/-. Therefore, issuance of that bill is illegal and unlawful. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.5,000/- for removal of the meter and disconnection of electric supply, further claiming compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment, further compensation of Rs.5,000/- for loss of reputation of the complainant in the society and further claiming legal expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Thus, total claim made by the complainant was of Rs.20,000/-. Moreover, the complainant also prayed for setting aside the bill dtd.20.09.2013 and direction to the opposite parties to issue proper bill after referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector. The complainant further prayed that opposite parties be restrained from disconnecting the electric supply of their house.
- The opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3 appeared before the Forum below and resisted the complaint by filing reply as follows.
a. They raised a preliminary objection that as the complainant committed theft of electricity by cutting down the seal of the meter and by tampering with the meter and its figure, the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. It is the main case of the opposite party that the meter reading was found earlier very less. Hence, the meter reader suspected tampering with the meter and its figures and he put remarks about the same on the meter reading sheet and therefore the opposite parties conducted inspection of that meter on 03.09.2003. It was found that the meter seals were broken and therefore photographs of the same were taken by calling the photographer. The Panchanama was prepared in the presence of brother of the complainant about aforesaid condition of the meter.
b. The opposite parties then issued notice on 03.09.2003 to the complainant about the said illegal act of the complainant, which was received by him. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties and sought extension of the time for payment of the bill issued by the opposite parties for Rs.25,252/-. Thus, time was extended for payment till 20.09.2003. On previous two occasions also the complainant had committed theft of electricity and hence warning was given to him. The complaint is thus false and deserves to be dismissed.
4. The Forum below after hearing both parties and considering evidence brought on record passed the impugned order on 31.12.2004. The Forum came to the conclusion that the allegations of theft of energy are not proved by the opposite parties. Therefore, the Forum partly allowed the complaint and thereby directed the opposite parties to set aside or withdraw the bill dtd.15.09.2003 for Rs.25,252/-. The Forum also made it clear that the said direction is given till the opposite parties receive report from the Electrical Inspector after referring the disputed meter. The Forum further directed the opposite parties to issue revised bills for the period from 15.07.2003 onward bimonthly on actual consumption basis within 15 days without interest or penalty and complainant shall pay the said bills within 15 days of receipt of the said bills. The Forum below further directed the opposite parties not to disconnect electric supply of the complainant till the date of payment of bill issued as per aforesaid direction. The Forum further directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- for harassment caused to the complainant and also to pay him cost of Rs.1,000/-.
5. As observed above, the appeal is filed by opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3 against that order. We have heard the learned advocate Smt M S Khandekar appearing for the appellants and learned advocate Mr J C Shukla appearing for the respondent. We have also perused copies of the record of the complainant filed by the appellant and the Written Notes of Arguments filed by the learned advocates of both parties.
6. The learned advocate of the appellant has drawn our attention to the photographs of the meter in dispute in support of her submission that the seal of the said meter has been shown as cut down. She has also drawn our attention to the inspection report dtd.03.09.2003 prepared after due inspection of the meter, showing that the seal of the meter is broken and there are scratches over the meter reading. She submitted that the said report is duly signed by Panchas, witnesses and the Assistant Engineer, who inspected the meter and the brother of the complainant. She further submitted that the affidavits of photographer and opposite party No.3 were duly filed alongwith inspection report and other documents on record, which were not properly considered by the Forum and erred in partly allowing the complaint. She also submitted that in view of the well settled law, the complaint filed to challenge the assessment made on account of theft of the electricity is not maintainable before Forum. She relied on the following decisions in support of her submission.
i. Walmik Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd., II(2015) CPJ 88 (NC)
It is observed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the said case that the Consumer Forum would not have jurisdiction to entertain complaint and go into question as to whether there was actually theft of electricity or not. The Hon’ble National Commission followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UP Power Corporation Vs. Anis Ahmed, in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012, wherein also it is held that the complaint before the Forum is not maintainable, which is filed to challenge the assessment made on the basis of theft of electricity.
- Kirti Agrotech Ltd., Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd., & Ors., I(2015) CPJ 137 (Maha.)
It is also held in the said case that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum if it is made to challenge the bill issued on the basis of assessment made under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003.
iii. Puran Singh Vs. Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd & 2 Ors.
In that case also, there was tampering with the electric meter as the seal of the meter was found broken. There was allegation of theft of electricity. It is held that as per aforesaid ratio laid down in the case of Anis Ahmed, the State Commission has no jurisdiction to try the case.
Therefore, the learned advocate of the appellants / original opposite parties submitted that the impugned order may be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned advocate of the respondent / original complainant supported the impugned order and submitted that from the day one of giving electric connection in the year 2000, the meter was showing exorbitant reading and therefore the respondent herein had made a complaint to the opposite parties about faulty meter and therefore new meter was installed and it showed that the consumption was reduced as per normal use and hence the complainant regularly paid the bills. He also argued that the opposite party No.3 was on cross terms with the complainant and therefore when the complainant was out of station, the opposite party No.3 visited his house and removed the meter without Panchanama on 03.09.2003 and disconnected the electric supply and on 04.09.2003 when the complainant approached him, there was altercations in between both of them and thereupon opposite party No.3 installed new meter and delivered handwritten bill demanding exorbitant amount of Rs.25,252/- from complainant. He further argued that thereupon the opposite party No.3 directed the complainant to pay 60% amount of that bill and no notice of the same was issued to the complainant and no report of electrical inspector was obtained. There is no base to allege that the meter was tampered with. Therefore, he submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the order and it needs no interference in the appeal. He, therefore, requested that the appeal may be dismissed with cost. He relied on the decisions in the following cases.
i. Shri Kanhiya Lal Vs. Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 1 CPR (NC) 242.
In that case, the meter was defective and no evidence of a person was filed by the opposite party, who installed the meter and who had taken the meter reading initially. The disproportionate bills were issued by the opposite party. Therefore, it is held that there is deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party.
ii. Ashok Ojha Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors., III(2015) CPJ 402 (NC)
In that case there was no documentary evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had used electricity for the purpose other than domestic. No assessment was done under Sections 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, it is held that Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
8. It is not disputed that the opposite parties / appellants had issued the disputed bill of Rs.25,252/- dtd.15.09.2003 alleging the theft of electricity. Bill produced on record shows that the assessment is made against the theft of electrical energy. Moreover, the spot inspection report prepared by opposite party No.3 is also produced, showing that the body seal of the meter was broken and there were scratches on meter reading. The photographs of that meter were also taken and produced on record showing that seal of the body of the meter was found broken. The affidavits of opposite party No.3 and photographer supporting the aforesaid case of the opposite parties were also filed before the Forum. Thus, the aforesaid case of the opposite parties about the theft of electrical energy and making of assessment of bill on that basis is duly supported by the aforesaid documents. In the aforesaid cases, relied upon by the learned advocate of the opposite parties / appellants, it is made very clear that when assessment of the bill is made on the basis of theft of electricity, then the complaint before the Forum is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Anis Ahmed has settled the law finally that a complaint, which filed for challenging the assessment made on the basis of theft of electricity is not maintainable before the Forum.
9. Therefore, we hold that the Forum erred in entertaining the present complaint and holding that the opposite parties have not proved the theft of electricity and thus, the impugned order on the sole ground of non-maintainability of the complaint before Forum, deserves to be set aside.
10. The aforesaid decisions relied by the learned advocate of the original complainant / respondent are not applicable to the present case since the facts & circumstances of all those cases, discussed above, are totally different from those of present case.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed and impugned order passed in the consumer complaint bearing No.86/03 is set aside.
ii. The complaint stands dismissed.
iii. The complainant / respondent herein is at liberty to approach appropriate authority under Electricity Act, 2003 for seeking redressal of his grievance against the disputed bill.
iv. No order as to costs in this appeal.
v. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
