The case record is posted today for re-hearing. The complainant is absent and no step is taken on his behalf. The Advocate for the Ops is present. 

                                         The Advocate for the Ops submitted that the complainant is neither taking any step nor present on the date fixed since long for which the Ops, being the officials, are facing a lot of inconvenience and harassment. Furthermore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. Therefore, it is prayed to dispose of the case on merit according to law. 

                                         As it appears, the Ops have made their appearance in this case and filed their written version. The complainant remained absent since 21.06.2017. For the above latches on the part of the complainant, the matter could not be taken up expeditiously. Thus, taking into consideration the long absence of the complainant and the submissions advanced on behalf of the Ops, it is felt just and proper to dispose of the case on merit as per law.

                                         It is averred in the complaint petition that the complainant is a domestic consumer under the Ops and he used to pay the electricity dues regularly. It is stated that the meter supplied by the Ops was found to be defective, for which it reflects variation of the units and on that basis, the Ops demanded huge amount of electric bill from him. When the complainant came to know about the fact of defective meter, he intimated the OP No.1 & 2, but they failed to take immediate steps for removal of the defective meter, for which he could not pay the bill amount in time. It is further stated that huge amount of units are being read for the period of January-February, March-April, May-June, July-August of 2008. The Ops are used to collect money on average charge basis from him without making any correction till the month of November-December, 2008. Further, in the bill for the month of November-December, 2008, an amount of Rs.1,19,017.00 was claimed by the Ops, for which the complainant filed petitions before the Ops, but in vain. The Ops are threatened the complainant, unless he would pay the outstanding dues, they would disconnect the power supply to his premises. For the above acts of the Ops, the complainant has suffering a lot of pain and mental agony.

                                         On the other hand, the Ops have stated in their written version, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable. Admitting the fact that the complainant is a consumer under them, it is specifically stated that the complainant has not paid the huge amount of outstanding electricity dues. It is further stated that the authorized Officials of the NESCO had been to the premises of the complainant during the month of December, 2008 for verification of the energy meter on being informed by the complainant and on verification it was detected that the complainant was availing the power supply by suppressing the meter reading and instead of five digits, four digits meter reading was taken. It was further detected that huge amount of back reading was pending for billing. With a view to avoid the payment of huge amount, the complainant has created a false allegation that the meter was defective, but in fact the meter was in good running condition. The complainant in connivance with the meter reader has tried his best to suppress the actual meter reading. It is a fact that the suppressed units to the tune of 9515 was billed amounting to Rs.1,19,045.60 paisa including the current dues for the month of December, 2008 which was served upon the complainant for payment. The complainant intentionally and deliberately avoiding to forfeit the legitimate dues of the Ops. 

                                         Perused the complaint petition, written version as well as the documents filed by both the parties. The complainant has admitted in his complaint petition that the Ops have claimed Rs.1,19,017.00 from him on the basis of bill prepared for the month of November-December, 2008 and being aggrieved he lodged complaint petition before the Ops, but in vain.

                                         In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in III (20213) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & others –v- Anis Ahmad have been pleased to observed that complaint against assessment made U/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. It is the Civil Court to sit upon the matter with respect to the decision of the assessing Officer. 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, thus, also the complaint against any action taken U/s 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Section 173, 174 & 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot drive power to adjudicate a dispute relating 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. In the present case, neither the complainant complied the assessment order made by the Ops nor knocked the door of the GRF. From the foregoing discussions, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.

                                         In the result, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed against the Ops. The interim order, if any, passed earlier against the Ops shall remain infructuous.