Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for respondent.

2.     This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.     The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer under the OPs. She submits that she has cleared all the bill till November, 2002 but she received a bill of Rs.15,049.60 without mentioning  reason thereof. So she submitted in writing about the reason for issuance of such bill. Since no replay was received, complainant filed the complaint.

4.     OPs filed written version stating that the compliant is not maintainable. On 20.10.2001, the official of NESCO visited the premises of the complainant and found that she was availing the power supply by way of intervening the system of the connection and as such the penal bill was issued for Rs.15,049.60 and after due consideration final bill for such amount was also issued. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.     After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxxxxxxxx

In view of the aforesaid facts we are of the opinion that the OPs are not entitled to claim Rs.15,049.60 paisa and subsequent surcharge on this amount, for its non-payment, as an arrear amount. Hence, the CD Case is allowed in favour of the complainant. However, under the circumstances, the claim of the complainant of Rs.3,000/- as compensation is not legally praiseworthy to be allowed.”

6.     Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed with proper perspectives. According to him the verification report dated 20.10.2001 is clear to show that the complainant was using electricity unauthorizedly by by-passing the meter and its apparatus. Complainant was also given opportunity to be heard but she could not substantiate the same. Learned District Forum without analyzing the same allowed the complaint. In such circumstances, the consumer complaint was not maintainable. He also cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vrs. Anis Ahmad AIR 2013, Supreme Court 2766 to support the case. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

8.     We have straight gone through the verification report dated 20.10.2001 where it is found that the official of OPs verified the premises of the complainant and found the complainant was using electricity unauthorizedly. Thereafter penal bill was issued for Rs.15,049.60 and said was also made final. In the decision of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others (Supra), it is clearly held that in the event of unauthorized use of energy of tampering of meter or its apparatus, the consumer complaint should not be maintainable because the next step was to approach the  appropriate authority under the OERC Code but not the Consumer Fora.

9.     In view of aforesaid decision, the present complaint is not maintainable. As such the impugned order is set aside and 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.