The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.2 is the Superintendent Engineer, NESCO, Balasore Electrical Division, Ganeswarpur, O.P No.3 is the S.D.O, Electrical, Nilgiri, NESCO and O.P No.4 is the J.E, Electrical, Sergarh Section, Sub-Division, Nilgiri.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a domestic Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.BG-6730. The Complainant remains in the said house for six hours to offer puja in his own home temple and for taking care of his garden and pays his electric bill to O.P No.4 as per his demand. The O.P No.4 during February-2017 asked the Complainant to apply for revision of bill amount along with to shift the meter from inside to outside wall to the O.P No.3 in order to avoid taking bill on average units. But on 14.03.2017, the O.P No.4 inspected the meter and found that the meter is OK bearing meter No.02171220 and asked for collection of bill amount to the Complainant and power cut was effected due to non-payment. Accordingly, the Complainant in consultation with O.P No.3 and 4 handed over three applications to O.P No.3 for supply of account statement, revision of bill and shifting of energy meter, but the O.P No.3 and 4 supplied the account statement only, but remained silent over other two matter, rather did not reconnect the power supply, which amounts to deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps No.3 and 4. The Complainant is ready to pay all electric dues only after revision of bill amount as per consumption from 09/2013 to 04/2017 and from 10/2014 to 01/2017, the O.Ps have collected excess amount in comparison to consumption of units by the Complainant, which is not in accordance to O.E.R.C Rules. Cause of action arose on 01.04.2017. The Complainant has prayed for revision of bill amount, shifting of energy meter along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

                    3. The O.P No.1 is deleted from this case vide Order dtd.31.05.2017.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.Ps No.2 to 4 through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps No.2 to 4 have further submitted that the Complainant has been penalized U/s.126 of I.E Act-2003 on 27.08.2014 by the O.Ps vide S.V.R No.NA684 Sl. No.17088, dtd.27.08.2014 for Rs.23,420/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand four hundred twenty) only, which was reflected in the month of October-2014 bill. The Complainant admits that only in morning time, he offers puja in his own temple for limited period. So, during Office hour, nobody is there to attend the NESCO staff as well as meter reader. So, meter reader is preparing bills in load factor basis and also power disconnected notice has been posted on the wall of the temple. In Februray-2017, the O.P No.4 met the Complainant and approached about collection and the Complainant said about revision of L.F bills. At that time, the O.P No.4 agreed to revise the bills and advised the Complainant should be agreed to shift the energy meter from inside the temple to outside wall of the temple, otherwise his power supply will be disconnected. The O.P No.4 on 14.03.2017 requested the Complainant to pay 50% or one-fourth (1/4) of the arrear amount, because in the month of March, the O.Ps have target to meet the collection, but the Complainant denied and on 15.03.2017, the Complainant did not turn up, so power supply disconnected. But, when the Complainant found no power supply, then he called for one private electrician, but not to NESCO staffs. The Complainant has neither approached to the O.Ps for reconnection of power supply nor deposited the electric bill. The O.Ps have already revised the bill, which was reflected in the bill of April-2017. But the Complainant without paying the bill, has filed this case in this Forum. Moreover, the O.Ps also advised to the Complainant to remain present for shifting of the meter, but the Complainant is not giving time. So, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.  

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that during February-2017, the O.P No.4 asked the Complainant to apply before O.P No.3 for revision of bill amount along with to shift the meter from inside to outside wall. But on 14.03.2017, the O.P No.4 inspected the meter and found that the meter is OK. The power cut was effected due to non-payment. Accordingly, the Complainant in consultation with O.P No.3 and 4 handed over three applications to O.P No.3 for supply of account statement, revision of bill and shifting of energy meter, but the O.P No.3 and 4 supplied the account statement, but remained silent over other two matter, rather did not reconnect the power supply, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps No.3 and 4. The Complainant is ready to pay all electric dues only after revision of bill amount as per consumption from 09/2013 to 04/2017 and from 10/2014 to 01/2017, the O.Ps have collected excess amount in comparison to consumption of units by the Complainant, for which the Complainant has filed this case for revision of bill amount, shifting of energy meter along with compensation and litigation cost. The O.P No.1 is deleted from this case as mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps No.2 to 4 that the Complainant has been penalized U/s.126 of I.E Act-2003 on 27.08.2014 by the O.Ps for Rs.23,420/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand four hundred twenty) only, which was reflected in the month of October-2014 bill. The O.P No.4 on 14.03.2017 requested the Complainant to pay 50% or one-fourth (1/4th) of the arrear amount, but the Complainant denied and on 15.03.2017, the Complainant did not turn up, so power supply was disconnected. The Complainant has neither complied the assessment order made by the O.Ps nor appealed before the appellate authority, rather filed this case in this Forum. The O.Ps have already revised the bill, which was reflected in the bill of April-2017. Moreover, the O.Ps also advised the Complainant to remain present for shifting of the meter, but the Complainant is not giving time. So, when there is an assessment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. However, in view of the authority reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that complaint against assessment made U/s.126 or action taken against those committing offences U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003, held, is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. Civil Court’s jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect to the decision of assessing Officer U/s.126 or with respect to a decision of the appellate authority U/s.127 is barred U/s.145 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, it is clear that 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, hence, also the complaint against any action taken under Sections-135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section-3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections-173, 174 and 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation 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.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority along with an application for condonation of delay, if desired/ required. Hence, Ordered:-   

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps No.2 to 4, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 8th day of June, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.