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.), C.E.D, Balia (NESCO), Balasore, O.P No.3 is the S.D.O (Elect.), Nilgiri (NESCO) and O.P No.4 is the Junior Manager, Berhampur (Elect.) Supply Sub-Division, Berhampur, Balasore.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a bonafide domestic Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.324321030086 having contract demand of 3 K.W and was paying electric bills regularly to the O.Ps. But, the O.Ps did not serve the electric bill for the month of April-2017 to the Complainant and after 4 months i.e. for the months of May to August, 2017, when the Complainant verified the same, he has been charged defective bills of Rs.4,310.80 ps. per month, which was highly excess. Thereafter, the Complainant filed application and approached the O.Ps on several occasions, but the O.Ps have not been corrected the defective bills for the months of May to August, 2017. Further, the O.Ps have forced the Complainant to sign in a spot verification report and after few days, the O.P No.4 has whimsically served the same to the Complainant. The O.Ps served the electric bills to the Complainant for the month of September-2017, where energy charges of Rs.657.22 ps., arrears of Rs.13,717.33 ps., sundry adj. of Rs.91,731/- and net amount of Rs.97,139/- are mentioned. Thus, the Complainant has paid the energy charges of Rs.660/- on 30.09.2017. The O.Ps without any basis, have demanded illegal and erroneous charges from the Complainant. The O.Ps threatened to disconnect the electric connection if the Complainant will not make payment of Rs.97,139/-, causing mental agony and financial loss to the Complainant. This also amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps, for which the Complainant has filed this case. Cause of action arose on 30.09.2017. The Complainant has prayed for correction of defective electric bill along with compensation. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.
3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps have further submitted that on 29.05.2017, the staffs of the O.Ps have verified the premises of the Complainant, where it was detected that the Complainant is availing unauthorized use of electricity by means of tampering the energy meter and also he has connected phase to phase i.e. incoming to outgoing terminal inside the meter by tampering the body seal and TP box seal through a black wire. Accordingly, a spot verification report was prepared and the copy was served to the Complainant, which was duly acknowledged by him. Thereafter, the provisional assessment U/s.126 of Electricity Act, 2003 has been prepared for Rs.1,11,358/- only and the copy was served to the Complainant vide letter No.563, dtd.06.06.2017, but the Complainant refused to receive the said assessment copy. Thus, final assessment order was prepared for Rs.91,732/- and the copy was also served to the Complainant vide letter No.910, dtd.30.08.2017. But, the Complainant has neither paid the penal bill nor appealed before the appellate authority, rather filed this case in this Forum. Hence, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.
4. 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 ?
5. 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 remains as it is. In his pleading, he has taken the plea that the O.Ps have served electric bills for the months of May to August, 2017, where the Complainant has been charged defective bills of Rs.4,310.80 ps. per month, which was highly excess. Thereafter, the Complainant filed application and approached the O.Ps on several occasions, but the O.Ps have not been corrected the defective bills for the months of May to August, 2017. Further, the O.Ps have served the electric bills to the Complainant for the month of September-2017, where the net amount of Rs.97,139/- is mentioned, which is illegal and defective one. Thus, the Complainant has paid the energy charges of Rs.660/- on 30.09.2017. Thereafter, the O.Ps have threatened to disconnect the electric connection if the Complainant will not make payment of Rs.97,139/-, causing mental agony and financial loss to the Complainant and it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps, for which the Complainant has filed this case praying for correction of defective electric bill along with compensation. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that the staffs of the O.Ps have verified the premises of the Complainant on 29.05.2017, where they have found that the Complainant is availing unauthorized use of electricity by means of tampering the energy meter. Thus, a spot verification report was prepared and the copy was served to the Complainant, which was duly acknowledged by him. Thereafter, observing necessary formalities of Law, provisional assessment order U/s.126 of Electricity Act, 2003 was prepared for Rs.1,11,358/- only and the copy was served to the Complainant, but the Complainant refused to receive the said assessment copy. Thus, final assessment order was prepared for Rs.91,732/- and the copy was also served to the Complainant. But, 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. 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.
6. 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, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 15th day of May, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
