ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

            This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 114 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and quashed the provisional notice dated 06.03.2013. The District Forum has directed the opposite party-Electricity Department not to recover any amount against the said notice from the complainant and to pay             Rs. 55,000/- towards damages to the complainant within a month from the date of the order. 

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant-Smt. Anjana Goyal W/o Sh. Sushil Goyal had taken an electricity connection of 0.5 kilowatt bearing connection        No. 034891 in her name.  The complainant had complained about the bills and false reading of the above-said meter to the opposite party-Electricity Department, but the opposite party did not consider the same. So the complainant filed a consumer complaint No. 208 of 2010 on 01.07.2010 before the District Forum, Haridwar and the same was decided on 27.11.2010 and the order was passed against the opposite party that electricity bills of the complainant should be rectified according to the meter reading within a month and no recovery should be made against this bill.  The opposite party did not comply the said order and again a recovery notice was issued to the complainant. The complainant again filed a consumer complaint against the opposite party before the District Forum as consumer complaint No. 153 of 2011, which was decided on 01.11.2011.  The opposite party was penalized for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages, but the opposite party again did not comply the order, rather they sent a notice No. 4476 dated 06.03.2013 for a sum of Rs. 2,34,294/- as electricity bill to the complainant. Due to this act of the opposite party, the complainant suffered a great mental agony. Therefore, due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

3.       The opposite party has filed written statement and pleaded that on 26.02.2013 during inspection, the complainant was found using unauthorized electricity directly from L.T. line after laying Katiya.  F.I.R. was lodged by the Electricity Department with the Police Station Jwalapur, Haridwar under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  A provisional assessment was made by Assistant Engineer of Electricity Department. The complainant was served a provisional assessment cum notice dated 06.03.2013, but the complainant did not file any objection against the said notice.  After this, the complainant is using the electricity unauthorisedly from the said electricity connection   No. 034891, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Electricity Department.

4.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, has allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 25.10.2013 in the above terms.  Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party-Electricity Department has filed the present appeal.

5.       We have heard Sh. S.M. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and have also perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent before this Commission.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellants-Electricity Department has submitted in the appeal that the District Forum has completely misdirected itself by ignoring the fact that on 26.02.2013, there was raid in the complainant-respondent’s premises and the she was found using electricity by laying jumper on the electric line of the Electricity Department unauthorizedly committing theft of electricity as per provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for which F.I.R. was lodged against the respondent. The District Forum has failed to appreciate that the assessment of Rs. 43,986/- was a provisional assessment under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in respect of theft of electricity, whereas Rs. 1,90,308/- was for the electricity dues of the bills in respect of respondent’s regular electricity connection, which is apparent from the details of calculation of assessment alongwith the provisional notice dated 06.03.2013.  The two dues are totally different.  The District Forum has not applied its mind to the calculations of provisional assessment, in which it was clearly stated that the assessment for theft is Rs. 43,986/- and the charges for consumption of bill is Rs. 1,90,308/-. The District Forum has failed to appreciate that in case the judgments dated 27.11.2010 and 01.11.2011 passed in consumer complaint Nos. 208 of 2010 and 153 of 2011 have not been complied with, procedure under Section 25 and Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is provided for enforcement and penalties of the same and fresh complaint cannot be filed in respect thereof, the same could not be considered by the District Forum.  The District Forum has wrongly held that as the appellants have not complied with the said judgments passed in the above mentioned cases, so the appellants have taken action under Section 135/126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 due to being annoyed with the respondent.  The said finding is illegal and without any basis.  The District Forum had no jurisdiction to disregard the action under Section 135/126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on this ground.  The same was for the consideration of special court established under the act for trial of offence under Section 135, for which the police report has already been lodged.  The District Forum cannot interfere with the criminal proceedings by passing the impugned order.  The case of respondent was barred by principal of res judicata, as she had already filed two similar consumer complaints against the appellants-Electricity Department.

7.       After perusal of the evidence and record, we are of the view that the dispute prima facie relates to theft and assessment of electricity.  In the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anis Ahmad; III (2013) CPJ I (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “The consumer complaints challenging electricity bills pertain to the unauthorized use and also assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not maintainable. Therefore, acts or person in indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” and, therefore, the “complaint” against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”.  In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others (supra), this consumer complaint challenging the electricity bill pertain to the unauthorized use of electricity, therefore, the District Forum has no power and jurisdiction to entertain the matter. If there is any grievance, the consumer can have it redressed before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the Electricity Department.

8.       The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 

9.       In the above circumstances, the consumer complaint was not legally maintainable before the District Forum.  As a result the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.  The impugned order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

10.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and consumer complaint No. 114 of 2013 is dismissed.  No order as to costs.  The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal be released in appellants’ favour.