1. The fact of the case of complainant is that he has taken electric connection to his residential quarter and used to pay the electricity bill regularly as per the meter reading and he has deposited the electricity bill till August, 2014 and in the month of September, 2014 the meter became defective, as such the electricity company issued provisional bill which was paid by him.  It is also alleges that on 20.12.2014 some unknown persons came to his house, identifying themselves as staffs of SOUTHCO, have inspected the meter and took his signature in a blank form and on 22.12.2014 he received a show cause notice from the O.P. mentioning to submit his reply within 7 days that why he shall not pay the find amount of Rs. 45,020/- and he submitted his reply to the show cause on 23.12.2014 to the O.Ps.With other allegations, showing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to replace the defective meter with a new one and to waive out the illegal fine imposed and also to pay him Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- compensation and costs of litigation.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.Ps. appeared in this case and filed their joint counter denying all the allegations of the complainant have contended that at the time of inspection they have found that the complainant is availing the power supply without any meter by directly connecting with the incoming service wire and connected load found in the premises is 5.9 Kw which is more than his contract demand and also they have challenged the jurisdiction of the Fora emphasizing the provisions under section 145 of Electricity Act, 2003 and also contended that since the provisional assessment bill was raised under the provisions of 126 of Electricity Act, there is no deficiency at any point and with other contentions, they have prayed to dismiss the case of complainant.
    
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents alongwith affidavit and citations in support of their cases.  Inspite of repeated adjournments and ample of opportunities, the complainant did not participate in the hearing nor laid any evidence.  Hence we lost opportunities to hear from him.  Only we have heard from the A/R for O.Ps who was present at the time of haring and perused the materials available on record.
    
4. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant was provided with the electricity connection vide electricity consumer no. 713101030116 / D1-2052 and the said meter was installed inside the premises of the complainant.  It is also a fact that the staffs of O.Ps have inspected the said meter on 20.12.2014. Further the allegations regarding that the staffs of O.Ps have taken the signature of the complainant in a blank form only to prove their duty of inspection.  If the said fact is to be taken intercommunication, then the complainant could have approached the higher authority of Southco i.e. the O.Ps, but the complainant did not prefer to do so, rather he has submitted his reply on 23.12.2014 against the Provisional Assessment Order U/s 126(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which clearly proves that the complainant had not made any objection to the O.Ps at the time of receiving his signature in a blank form, therefore, it is clearly evident that the Vigilance Squard of Southco had been to the premises of the complainant and inspected the alleged meter and after due inspection, they took the signature of complainant inside his residential premises.Therefore the allegations of complainant regarding putting his signature in a blank form, is not believable.
    
5. On the other hand, we have perused the documents filed by the Opp. Party, which revealed that on 20.12.2014 the Vigilance Squard of Southco had inspected the alleged meter and on the same day they have issued the Provisional Assessment Order vide no. 59 dated 20.12.2014 alongwith the details U/s 126(2) of their Act, wherein the complainant was given an opportunity for filing of objection and hearing to be made on 27.12.2014 i.e. to say within seven days.  It is also evident from the record that the complainant though filed his show cause reply on dated 23.12.2014 but did not choose for hearing, instead, he kept silent and the filed the present case on 26.12.2014.  Hence we feel that the complainant without preferring for hearing as the opportunity was given to him by the opp. parties, he filed this case with an intention to obstruct their proceeding.
    
6. Further, as per the inspection report filed by the opposite parties, it is clearly revealed from the Col. No. 9 that “Nature of Unauthorized use of Electricity :- Availing P/S without meter”, against which, the reply of complainant in his show cause reply reveals that “ 3. That I have not used the electric in unauthorized manner and as such I am not liable to pay any fine / compensation as imposed against me”.  For the sake of brevity, if the reply of complainant is to be taken into consideration, then the question arises that why the complainant did not choose to participate in the hearing on 27.12.2014 before the S.D.O. (Elelct), Malkangiri Electrical Sub Division and why did he file the present case prior to one day of hearing on dated 27.12.2014 ?Hence we feel that the complainant might have indulged himself in theft of electricity without using any meter and wants to protect himself by extracting the provision of Section 3 of the C.P.Act. That in the case between Dr. Laxman Dass Basnsal vrs. E.E.(OP) Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigm Ltd. and Anr reported in 2012 (1) CPR 25 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission clearly held that “A consumer who commits theft of energy by deceitful illegal means by tampering with meter cannot claim any benefit under Consumer Protection Act.” From the above observation and documents filed by the Opp. Parties, it is prima facie established that only to get the protection under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has tried to play hide and seek game. As such, we feel, the complainant has not come with clean hands and concealed the truth before us.  Hence we do not think that the present case is a fit case for proceeding and any favourable order can be passed to the Complainant.  Hence we dismiss the case having no merits.
    
7. Further the O.Ps challenges the jurisdiction of the Fora emphasizing the provisions U/s 145 of The Electricity Act, 2003.  We have carefully gone through the said provision, which clearly says that Section 145. Civil Court not have jurisdiction. – No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.  From the above observations, it is also ascertained that since the present disputes relates to the provision under section 126, as such this Forum is not having any appropriate jurisdiction for adjudication of the case, hence considering the facts and circumstances, we dismiss the present case for want of jurisdiction and merits. 

ORDER

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the present case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction as well as on the point of merit.  No order as to costs.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 18^th day of December, 2017.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.