BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 13^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

ORDERS ON IA

     Complainant has filed IA u/o 151 C.P.C to direct the OP to restore the electricity meter connection to the complainant office.

The OP has filed their version with a memo to treat the version as an objection to the IA. We have heard the arguments.

The only point that arise for our consideration is

1. Whether IA is liable to be allowed:
2. What order?

Our finding on the above points are in the Negative for the following;

REASONS

     The complainant has filed this complaint to direct the Ops to reinstall the electricity meter and also to pay the compensation for the loss occurred due to negligent act of the OP and for award damages.

It is the case of the complainant that he is the tenant under one Jayanth Kumar Landlord of the flats and he is in peaceful possession.  The complainant has taken permission from BESCOM for power supply and fixed meter board and he has paid the deposits for fixing the meter.

It is further case of the complainant that he has not misused any type of power of supply from BESCOM, the OP have visited the complainant’s business place and investigated the business premises stating that the complainant had committed theft of electricity from domestic to commercial.

It is further case of the complainant that he is not at all used the electricity from domestic to commercial and he is regular in paying every month electric bill.  This complainant is unable to move due to his back pain he has filed this complaint through his authorized person.  This complainant have no tenants in the flat and the flat is vacant from last five to six months and he is not running any PG center.  The OP vaguely without any evidence have imposed huge penalty of Rs.3,66,459/-. In view of this illegal act of disconnecting electricity and imposing huge penalty the complainant has undergone lot of mental agony. 

On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the very complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable as per sec 135(1)(e) of the electricity act 2003 and 153 and 145 of the act.

It is the case of the OP that the complainant is not the consumer of the installations bearing RR No.(i) 9EDLG28800, (ii) 9EEH41757, (iii) 9EEH 41754, (iv) 9EEH 41755 and (v) 9EEH 41756 are residential purpose under LT-II tariff which have been serviced in the name of Annayappa Soubhagyalakshmi in the property bearing No106, Arkavathi Layout, 6^th Block, Dr.SRK Nagar, Bangalore.

It is further case of the OP that the above said installation have been inspected by the vigilance of the OP on 15.02.2023 and found that the aforesaid installations dishonestly using the power supply other than sanctioned tariff for the purpose of service apartments which is applicable LT-3 tariff and running the business in the name of ARN service apartment.  Run by the complainant which amounts to use of electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized which amounts to dishonesty within the meaning of sec 135(1)(e) of Electricity  Act 2003.  Therefore the inspecting authority drawn the inspection report in the presence of the complainant by removing the meters and drawn the mahazar in the presence of the consumer and the panchas and after taking the photographs of the building they have registered a case in CR No.20/2023 punishable u/s 135(1)(e) of Electricity Act.  The complainant has taken trade license from BBMP and the mahazar which has been drawn in the presence of panchas clearly discloses as to the usage of electricity for the purpose of service apartment.

It is further case of the OP that they being the authorized officer by exercising the power conferred u/s 135(2) of Electricity Act 2003 the concerned officer lodged complaint before the police in CR No.20/2023, the AEE, Electricity BESCOM being the authorized officer after obtaining consumption details has quantified the electricity charges to Rs.2,02,631/-.   As per the conditions of supply of electricity of distribution licenses in the state of Karnataka the OP issued provisional demand notice for revenue loss.  The complainant did not turn up to file objections or to deposit the aforesaid amount and the same has been treated as arrears as to using of electricity for the purpose of service apartment, which is applicable to LT-3 Tariff, wherein the power supply was served under LT-2 tariff for residential purpose which amounts to an offence punishable u/s 135 of the electricity act.  Subject to outcome of the proceedings u/s 154 of the act. The complainant is liable to pay the demand raised by the authorized officer together with compounding charges as applicable. The proceedings initiated u/s 135 of the act are the subject matter before the special court constituted u/s 153 of the act and procedure and power of the court u/s 154 of the act.  Therefore this commission will not get any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint within the meaning of sec 145 of the act. As per sec 145 of the act no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this act.

it is also the case of the OP that sec 135 is punishable under the offences which authorizes the authorized officer to disconnect the power supply and to lodge a complaint and accordingly the police have already registered a case against the complainant.  The special court has empower to determine the civil liability against the consumer or a person in terms of money or theft any energy.

In support of his contention the OP has relied on decision of our Hon’ble high court has relied on Ajit J Gunjal J, The Executive Engineer, KPTCL now, GESCOM and Ors –vs- Ishwaramma and another,

Electricity Act, 2003- Section 145 – Jurisdiction whether the provisions of sec 145 would oust the jurisdiction of the civil court or any other forum – Held – A reading of sec 145 of the Act would clearly indicate that no civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any other matter which the assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 is empowered to determine or Act, only on such conditions being satisfied the jurisdiction of the Civil court as well as any other forum is ousted.  Section 145 of the act by implication would exclude jurisdiction of Civil Court of any other forum on adjudicating the claim or action of the petitioners.

It is clear from the above decision and the objections raised by the OP that the very complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable. A criminal complaint is registered against the complainant and the matter is pending before the special court. According to sec 145 of the act this Commission or civil court have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  When the very complaint is not at all maintainable before this Commission the question of granting interim order do not arise.  Hence the IA and the complaint itself is liable to be dismissed. Thereforewe answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

IAs filed u/s151 CPC and the complaint are hereby Dismissed as not maintainable.