The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Superintendent Engineer, NESCO, Balia, O.P No.2 is the Executive Engineer (Elect.), SED, Soro, O.P No.3 is the S.D.O (Elect.), Bahanaga and O.P No.4 is the Junior Manager, Khantapada (Elect.) Supply Sub-Division, Bahanaga.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant being a Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.423203370038, approached the O.Ps along with all relevant documents for new connection to his farm in the year 2011, accordingly the O.Ps supplied electric connection. The Complainant approached the O.Ps on 24.03.2014 for enhancement of load factor from 3 K.W to 5 K.W and obtained a completion certificate, money receipt and a bond. The Complainant is abiding terms as per Tariff notification under Regulation-57 of OERC (conduct of business), but the O.Ps are threatening to the Complainant in different pretext. Thus, the Complainant filed a petition before the G.R.F, NESCO, Balasore on 22.02.2016, but they did not entertain the same as grievances and disposed of. But, the O.Ps on 15.09.2016 verified the farm of the Complainant and observed that the Complainant has unauthorisedly diverted the load to domestic premises from the above connection to the extent of 1135 watt and demanded more money, which is illegal and arbitrary. A separate electric connection has been made to his premises, where they are staying and paying electric bills regularly. Moreover, the O.Ps threatened to disconnect electric connection, if the Complainant would not pay illegal amount of Rs.39,572/- (Rupees Thirty nine thousand five hundred seventy two) only, causing mental agony to the Complainant, thus filed this case. Cause of action arose on 23.12.2016. The Complainant has prayed for correction of bill along with compensation for mental agony, financial loss and litigation cost. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case though the Advocate for Complainant files hazira.
3. Though sufficient opportunities are given to O.P No.1, but he has not appeared in this case. The O.P No.1 is also set ex-parte.
4. Written version filed by the O.Ps No.2 to 4 through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, limitation as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps No.2 to 4 have further submitted that on 15.09.2016, the O.Ps made a spot verification to the premises of the Complainant along with the alleged farm house in presence of the Complainant and detected that the Complainant has unauthorisedly diverted the power supply to his domestic accommodation bearing Consumer No.23305. Thus, spot verification report was prepared and basing on it, provisional assessment U/s.126 of Electricity Act-2003 was prepared for Rs.39,572/- (Rupees Thirty nine thousand five hundred seventy two) only on 23.09.2016, which was served to the Complainant. Since the Complainant failed to file any objection against the provisional assessment order, the same became final and accordingly, final assessment U/s.126 (3) of Electricity Act-2003 was prepared for the same amount on 06.12.2016, which was also served to the Complainant.
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. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case. So, his pleading is his case. According to his pleading, on 15.09.2016, the O.Ps verified the farm of the Complainant and found that the Complainant has unauthorisedly diverted the load to his domestic premises to the extent of 1135 watt, which is illegal and arbitrary. The O.Ps threatened to disconnect electric connection, if the Complainant would not pay illegal amount of Rs.39,572/- (Rupees Thirty nine thousand five hundred seventy two) only, causing mental agony to the Complainant, for which he has filed this case praying for correction of bill along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the O.P No.1 is set ex-parte as mentioned earlier and it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps No.2 to 4 that on 15.09.2016, the O.Ps made a spot verification to the premises of the Complainant along with the alleged farm house in presence of the Complainant, where they have found that the Complainant has unauthorisedly diverted the power supply to his domestic accommodation. Thus, spot verification report was prepared and basing on it, provisional assessment U/s.126 of Electricity Act-2003 was prepared for Rs.39,572/- (Rupees Thirty nine thousand five hundred seventy two) only on 23.09.2016, which was served to the Complainant. Since the Complainant failed to file any objection against the provisional assessment order, the same became final and accordingly, final assessment U/s.126 (3) of Electricity Act-2003 was prepared for Rs.39,572/- (Rupees Thirty nine thousand five hundred seventy two) only on 06.12.2016, which was also served to the Complainant. The Complainant has neither complied the order nor appealed before the appellate authority, rather filed this case in this Forum. 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 ex-parte against O.P No.1 and on contest against O.Ps No.2 to 4, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 18th day of April, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.