O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath, President.

Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

The petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board. The petitioner is the absolute owner of building Nos. 85 and 86 of Pala Municipality. As per the plan approved by the local authority the petitioner constructed the building and applied for getting electric connection to the said building. The officer of the first opposite party made due inspection and after complying all formalities given supply to the building in 1 A tariff with vide consumer No. 1391 and 1392 petitioner regularly paid electricity charges as per the spot bill issued to the petitioner. On 24..9..2007 petitioner received a bill, as per section 126 of the electricity Act, directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 1,39,139/- for a period from 4/06 to 9/07. For consumer No. 13901. According to the petitioner reason for issuance of the bill was not stated in the notice and

-2-

the calculation stated were not to be understood and not legible petitioner on 27..9..2007 made representation to second opposite party and second opposite party issued final bill, as per section 126 of the act, directing, petitioner to pay Rs. 94,826/- for the period from 4/06 to 9/07. According to the petitioner issuance of bill is without any basis and petitioner has not made any change in the connected load. On 30..10..2007 petitioner got a letter from the second opposite party stating to consolidate consumer No. 1390 and 1392. According to the petitioner two consumer numbers are two seperate building and connections for different purpose. So, according to the petitioner the said 2 consumer Nos. can not be consolidated practically petitioner on 5..11..2007 sent a letter to the opposite party. The opposite party without hearing the petitioner issued a combined bill, dtd: 24..11..2007, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 10593/- as fee for the consumption petitioner states that act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service so he prays for a direction for canceling the bill dtd: 24..9..2007 and 28..9..2007 and to withdraw order dtd: 30..10..2007 consolidating both consumer numbers. Petitioner prays for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of the proceedings.

The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party as per section 145 of the Electricity Act 2003 the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain an issue coming under section 126 of the Electricity Act opposite party contented that the petitioner has once exhausted his remedy so, he cannot nowfile a complaint before the Fora proper way is to file appeal to the higher authority. In this case he availed his remedy and revised his bill and

-3-

instalment facility was sanctioned. So, petition is not maintainable. Opposite party further contented that petitioner have two connections to his building one is a single phase service connection, with consumer No. 11901 with a sanctioned connected load of 1120 W. under LT 1 (A) domestic tariff and other single phase service connection with consumer No. 13902 with a sanctioned connected load of 3050 W. under commercial tariff (LT VII A) On 22..9..2007 board authorities inspected the premises of the consumer and find that service connection given to consumer in 13901 is used for commercial purpose instead of domestic purpose. So, the opposite party prepared a site mahazar and issued bill under section 126 of the electricity act. The petitioner filed objection to assessing officer and a final revised bill for an amount of Rs. 94,826/- was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the final bill and expressed his willingness to remit the same on instalment basis. Opposite party further contented that as per clause 21 (7) (F) one service connection is allowable for the same purpose under the same tariff. So, as per rules the petitioner has to consolidate the 2 service connection in to one. Accordigly on 30..10..2005 detailing all this matters a letter was issued to the petitioner. But the petitioner did not take any steps to consolidated same. The opposite part further contented that there was no illegality or deficiency in service in issuing the bill.

Points for deter minations are:

i) Whether petition is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

iii) Reliefs and costs?

-4-

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext. A1 to A8 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 document on the side of the opposite parties.

Point No. 1

According to the opposite party as per section 145 of the Electricity Act Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against bill issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The Hon'ble National Commission in in Jharkhand Electricity Board Vs. Anvar Ali reported in 2008 CTJ 837 (CP) (NCDRC) stated that jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora should not and would not be curtail unless there is an express provision

prohibiting that forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or any other Forum established under any other enactment. In the said case Hon'ble National Commission stated that in case of official assessment order passed under section 126 of the Electricity Act if a consumer is aggrived it is his option to file complaint under Consumer Protection Act or to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. The National Commission further stated that before entertaining the complaint the Consumer Fora would observe whether the petitioner had complied section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act. Section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act states that no appeal against an order of assessment under sub section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal to ½ of the assessed amount is deposited. Here the petitioner has not complied section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act. So, we are of the opinion that on the said ground the petition is not maintainable before this Fora . So point No. 1 is found accordingly.

-5-

Point No. 2 and 3.

In view of the finding in point No. 1. There is no need for discussion of point No. 2 and 3. In the result the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost is ordered.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16^th day of December, 2008.