O R D E R
(By Mr. D.Shanker Rao, Member)
1. The brief facts set out in the complaint are that the complainants 1 and 2 are father and son. They are having electricity service connections through SC No.3380 (agricultural purpose) and SC No.21938 (Commercial) and paying bills regularly to opposite party No.1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have inspected the meter for SC No.21938 and disconnected it by slapping notice with FIR No.6572/11 for theft of electricity. The complainant No.2 was asked to pay Rs.12,000/- initially but not explained the reasons. The complainant NO.2 tried to convince but off no use, and he has paid the bill of Rs.12,000/- on 4-1-2012 under protest. The department of opposite parties did not restore the electricity supply and still the service connection is in disconnection. That on 9-1-2012 the opposite party No.2 has issued a notice Lr.No.ADE/OP/Town/KMR/F.No.3828/D.No.1111/11 dated 9-1-2012 for Rs.1,41,489/- to the complainants in the name of complainant No.2 without any satisfactory and basical calculations. As no positive response came from opposite parties, the complainants have compelled to file this complaint for cancellation of notice Lr.No.ADE/OP/Town/KMR/F.No.3828/D.No.1111/11 dated 9-1-2012 for Rs.1,41,489/- and refund the amount of Rs.12,000/- which was paid under protest.
2. The opposite party No.2 filed counter and the same is adopted by opposite parties 1 and 3. The brief facts of the counter are that the electricity supply through SC No.21938 was released under Cat-II Commercial purpose at Kamareddy D-II. A theft of energy was booked by the department when indulged in pilferage of energy by utilizing the supply intentionally for 5 HP motor from the near by Agricultural LT line of SC No.3380 and filling the water in tankers for the purpose of selling. As per the provisions under section 154(5) of Electricity Act 2003 read with clause 10 of the GTCS the theft of energy has been assessed for Rs.1,41,339/- plus Rs.150/- for supervision charges. The period of assessment is 1 year and 7520 units. A notice for the theft of energy was issued vide Lr.No.ADE/OP/Town/KMR/F.No.3828/D.No.1111/11 dated 9-1-2012 for Rs.1,41,339/- plus Rs.150/- for supervision charges and the same was acknowledged by the complainants on 9-1-2012. Instead of payment, the complainants have filed the complaint only to evade the payment. There are no merits in the complaint and the complainants are not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. The complaint for withdrawing the provisional assessment notice is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainants have falsely filed the complaint by suppressing real facts.
3. During enquiry, the complainants have not filed their evidence by way of affidavit inspite of sufficient and reasonable time granted. Hence the Forum deemed it that there is no evidence on behalf of complainants and complainant’s side evidence was closed on 23-4-2013. The opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Ch.Gangadhar S/o Gangaram ADE Operations/Town/ Kamareddy on behalf of opposite party No.2 and also on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 3 and closed their evidence.
4. Heard arguments.
5. The points for consideration are :
- Whether the complainants have indulged in pilferage of electricity energy? If so, Whether consumer Forum has Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under C.P. Act 1986 ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 ?
3) To what relief?
6. POINT No. 1: The case of the complainants is that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have inspected electricity service meter in their fields and disconnected it without explaining the reasons and left the fields by slapping notice with FIR No.6572/11, mentioning theft of energy and asked the complainant No.2 to pay Rs.12,000/- initially for the service meter No.21938. In support of their case, the complainants have filed the documents along with their complaint i.e. 1) Provisional Assessment notice for theft of energy dated 9-1-2012, 2) Notice for payment of compounding fee for Rs.12,000/-, 3) Title deed book of complainant No.1, 4) Agricultural electricity bill card for SC No.3380 in the name of complainant No.1, 5) Electricity bills for SC No.3380 in three numbers, 6) Receipt for electricity service connection charges for SC No.3380, 7) Electricity bills in 8 numbers for SC No.21938 and 8) Receipt for payment of Rs.12,000/- as compounding fee for SC No.21938 by complainant No.2.
The version of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that, a theft of energy was booked, and issued provisional assessment notice for Rs.1,41,339/- plus Rs.150/- for supervision charges. The complainants have suppressed the real facts and filed a false complaint which has no jurisdiction to entertain under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainants have failed to produce their evidence by way of filing affidavit in spite of sufficient time granted. This Forum deemed it that there is no evidence on behalf of complainants and their evidence was closed.
The opposite parties 1 to 3 have adduced the evidence of Ch.Gangadhar S/o Gangaram, ADE Operations/Town/Kamareddy. The documents filed by the complainants along with their complaint remains in the record without marking. However we peruse the documents for just disposal of the case.
It is undisputed fact that a notice for theft of energy was issued vide Lr.No.ADE/OP/T/KMR/F.No.3828.D.No.1111/11 dated 9-1-2012 for payment of Rs.1,41,339/- plus Rs.150/- for supervision charges to the complainant No.2. it is also not disputed that the service of electricity connection through SC No.3380 was released on 11-1-2008 in the name of complainant No.1 for the fields in Sy. No.134/2 for agricultural purpose. It is also no dispute that the service of electricity connection through SC No.21938 was released in the name of complainant No.2 for commercial purpose. It is also not in dispute that the complainant No.2 has paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- for electricity service connection No.21938 fee for compounding the offence of energy theft U/s 152 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 for the case in FIR NO.6572/11, issued by vigilance police and APTS-PS, Nizamabad.
That on perusal of provisional assessment notice for theft of electricity in Lr.No.ADE/OP/Town/KMR/F.No.3828/D.No.1111/11 dated 9-1-2012 for SC No.21938, it is observed that the consumer is utilizing supply intentionally for his 5 H.P. motor from the near by agricultural LT line from which he is filling water in tankers for the purpose of selling, though he is having 24 hours LT line through SC NO.21938 for commercial. Hence the consumer is indulging in pilferage of electricity energy and provisionally assessed at Rs.1,41,339/- plus Rs.150/- for supervision charges. A criminal case was initiated through FIR No.6572/11 under section 135 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 for guilty of theft of electricity energy. The complainant No.2 has paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- on 4-1-2012 and compounded the said criminal case. The provisional assessment is only for civil liability under section 154 of Indian electricity Act 2003 and the said assessment will be adjusted after determined by appropriate authority as provided under section 154 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003.
In view of aforesaid facts, we are of considered opinion is that there is theft of electricity energy by-passing the meter in SC No.21938 (Commercial) which is in the name of complainant No.2.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sub-Divisional Officer (P) UHBVNL V/s DHARMPAL reported in 2007 CTJ 1 (SC) while dealing with case of pilferage has categorically observed that the consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against electricity department.
In the light of above decision, we are of the opinion that this complaint has no jurisdiction to entertain against opposite parties 1 to 3 and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we answered the point No.1.
7. POINT No. 2 & 3:
The question of deficiency of service is not required to be decided since the complaint itself is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. IN THE RESULT, the complaint is DISMISSED without costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Member in Open Forum on this the 30th day of September 2013.
