Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that complainant has filed the case stating that complainant is a consumer under the opposite party but raised objection to the penal bill  dated 17.3.2005 after illegally using the electric line. The complainant also challenged the penal bill amount and disconnection of the electric line.

4.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that O.P. filed written version stating that on 17.3.2005, the authorised official of NESCO inspected/verified the electrical installation in the premises of the complainant in his presence. During verification, it was detected that the consumer was availing power supply unauthorisedly by way of by-passing his own energy meter and was availing the power supply from the L.T. line connecting another service line standing in the name of another  defaulted consumer Sk. Hakimullah. It was also detected that the complainant was availing power to a tune of 8 K.W. exceeding his initial contractual demand of 2.5 K.Ws illegally/unauthorisedly. Therefore, they have imposed penal bill and served the final bill upon the complainant. They, there is no deficiency on their part.

5.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum, without considering the materials on record passed the impugned order which should be set aside. According to him, as per the verification report of the MRT staff, they found that the complainant has committed theft of energy by way of by-passing his own energy meter and was availing the power supply from the L.T. line which is connected with another service line of one consumer. Accordingly they have issued a final bill of Rs. 1.00.806/- to the complainant. Protesting the issuance of the final bill, the complainant filed the objection. He submitted that learned District Forum ought to have considered the same. He has also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Anis Ahmad, AIR 2013 SC 2766 where their Lordships observed as follows:-

            “xxxx                    xxxx                 xxxx

            ......A ‘complaint’ against the assessment made by the assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.”

6.        Considered the submissions of the parties, perused the DFR including the impugned order.

7.        It appears that on 17.3.2005, MRT staff, inspected the premises of the complainant and found he has committed theft of energy by way of by-passing his own energy meter and was availing the power supply from the L.T. line which is connected with another service line. It was also detected that the complainant was availing power to a tune of 8 K.W. exceeding his initial contractual demand of 2.5 K.Ws illegally/unauthorisedly.

8.        On perusal of the records, it appears that the MRT staff found that the complainant has committed theft of energy unauthorizedly bypassing the metering arrangement and violating the provisions of the agreement and regulation in force. Accordingly, they have issued the penal bill. Objection to the same has been raised by the complainant and thereafter final bill was raised. All these materials have not been considered by the learned District Forum.

9.        It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation case (supra) that in case of hooking, malfunctioning or bypassing energy, the Consumer complaint is not maintainable and authorities under the Electricity Act  and Regulation thereunder are to be followed. From the aforesaid decision, it is very clear that if there is theft of energy or tampering of meter, the Consumer Protection Act would not be applicable.  Since it is a case under Section  126 of the Electricity Act, we are of the view that learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing the impugned order which should be set aside and accordingly we set aside the impugned order.

10.     The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

            DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.