Orissa

Rayagada

CC/333/2016

Sri K.Chandra Bhusan Raon - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst. Manager, Vigilance Enforcement soutnco - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 333/ 2016.                                        Date.    7    .6. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri K.Chandrabhusan Rao, S/O : Late K.Dharma Rao, At: Belkona, Po:Sikerpai,  PS:K.Singpur,

Dist: Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                              …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Assistant Manager, Electrical Vigilence office, Enforcement Cell, SOUTH.CO., Seriguda, Rayagada, Dist:Rayagada.           

1.The Executive  Engineer, SOUTH.CO., Electrical Division, Po/ Dist:  Rayagada.   ..Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri   RAmesh Kumar Padhy, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps :-Sri Ashish Kumar Panda,Deputy  Manager (Legal), South.Co., Rayagada.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes emerges out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for challenging the provisional  revenue assessment notice Dt. 17.08.2016 of  Electricity connection bearing consumer No.311203370020. The   brief facts of the case are summarised here under.

          1)That the complainant is a consumer  of electricity having connection  bearing consumer No. 311203370020 with connected load of 0.58 K.W.  It was alleged that the SOUTH. Co Vigilence Squard on Dt. 17.08.2016 got his premises  inspected  by its team and subsequently  sent a notice to him on Dt. 17.08.2016. In the said notice  it  was alleged that the Enforcement team on inspection made on  Dt. 17.08.2016 found that  the complainant was availing power supply through tampered meter by breaking the meter box seal and meter body seal and making the meter defective in which the meter was recording consumption 75.51% slow . The complainant  challenged  the provisional assessment order  bill Dt. 17.08.2016 for Rs. 18,823.00  raised by the O.P. He prayed  direct the O.Ps. to  correct the bill  and withdraw the demand  notice  and to pay the costs and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

          2)On being noticed  the Deputy  Manager (Legal), South.Co., Rayagada appeared in person before the  forum and filed written versioninteralia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps taking other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents,  written version filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law                                                    

         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record  we observed  there is no dispute  that the complainant is a consumer  and availed  service from the O.Ps   bearing consumer No. . 311203370020  and paying  monthly consumption bills of  electricity.

The O.P. in their written version in para No.1 clearly mentioned the case filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable in the eyes of law in view of the principle  laid down by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporatin Ltd. and others Vrs. Anis Ahmad reported in (AIR 2013 SC 2766) and recent decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha passed in W.P© No. 16629 of 2015.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complaint petition under section  126 of the Electricity Act, 2003  is  maintainable under   C.P. Act?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2013(3) page No. 670 in  the case of U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. &  Others  Vrs. Anis Ahmad   where  in the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed “In case of unconsistency between  the  Electricity Act, 2003 and  the C.P.Act, 1986, the provisions of C.P.Act  will prevail, but  ipso facto it will not vest the  Consumer forum wih the power to redress any dispute with  regard  to the matters which do not come within the  meaning of “Service” as defined  under  section 2(1)(O) or “complaint” as defined  under section 2(1)© of the C.P. Act, 1986. The actsof indulgence in “unauthorized use of electricity” by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section -126 of the  Electricity Act, 2003 neither has any  relationship  with  “unfair trade practice” or “restrictive trade practice” or “deficiency  in service”  nor does it  amounts to   hazardous services  by the licensee.  Such acts  of  “unauthorized use of electricity” has nothing  to do with charging  price in excess of the  price.  Therefore, acts of person in indulging in ‘unauthorized  use of electricity ‘ do not faill with the meaning of   “complaint” as we have noticed above and therefore, the   “complaint” against   assessment under section- 126 is not  maintainable  before the consumer forum. The commission has already noticed that the  offences referred to  in Section- 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special court  constituted under section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint  against any action taken under Sections-135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer  Forum. 

                Again it is held and reported in CPR  -  2013(3) page No.544 the Hon’ble  National Commission where in observed “ Complaint  concerning power theft and penality is not maintainable before Consumer Forum”.

 

                The O.Ps  in their written version para  No. 3  contended that  on Dt.18.8.2016 the O.P. No.1 had  entered the  premises of the complainant for the purpose of of inspection as empowered under section  -126(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and during course of the inspection  it was found that the complainant was availing  power supply through  a tampered  meter by breaking the meter box seal and meter body seal  and  making the meter defective in which the  meter was recording consumption 75%  slow. (The inspection  report Dt. 17.8.2016 is in the file marked as Annexure-I).

               

                The O.Ps  in their written version para  No. 4  contended that  availing power supply through a defective  meter in means making the meter  75% error   is amounts  to unauthorized  use of electricity  Under  Section 126(6)(b)(ii) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and for such unauthorized use of electricity the O.P No.1 being  empowered  under the Electricity Act, 2003 and subsequent notification in this effect made provisional assessment under section 126 (2) of the Act  by way of passing  provisional assessment to the tune of Rs. 18,323/- and served the same to the complainant  on Dt. 17.8.2016 and calling upon him to file objection  within  7 days  of receipt of  such provisional assessment, if any, but the complainant  did not file any objection on the date fixed, as such the O.P. No.1 made final assessment confirming the provisional assessment.(Copies of the  Provisional and final assessment order  are in the file which are marked as Annexure-2 & 3)respectively.

 

                The O.Ps  in their written version para  No. 5  contended that  the proceeding Under section -126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is  quasi judicial in nature. If the complainant  is aggrieved  by the final order of assessment made under   Section 126(3) of the Act,  he may within  30 days of the said order, prefer an appeal  before the Appellate authority as per the mandate of Section-127 of the  Electricity Act, 2003. Which is a special tribunal constituted under section -127 of the  Indian Electricity Act, 2003for redressal of any grievance  against the final order of assessment as regards of  unauthorized  use of electricity; as such this  forum  has no jurisdiction  to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant.  Further the jurisdiction of the consumer forum has also been barred as per the provision of  Section-145 of the Electricity  Act.

               

As the  case is not maintainable  before the forum  We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

                This forum  completely agreed with the views taken by the O.Ps in their written version inter alia  filing necessary documents  in support of  this case. 

 

In view of the order passed by the  Apex Court  the complaint filed in the present case before the forum  is not maintainable. Accordingly, without  going into the merits of the case, this forum dismiss  the above complaint petition  with liberty to the complainant to seek appropriate remedy available to him before the appropriate forum.

To meet the ends of justice  the following order is passed.

 

 

ORDER

                .                                                                                                                              

                In resultant the complaint petition is    stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

  Further this  forum ordered  the OPs not to claim any amount   towards provisional assessment order  bill Dt. 17.08.2016 for Rs. 18,823.00  as demanded  by them bearing consumer No. 311203370020 and they can only claim the complainant the regular consumption bill  till finalization of the petition by the competent/appellate authority,  if the complainant prefers for any relief with in the period of limitation in the proper court of law having jurisdiction.

            “The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay  as reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583   the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed   the above  point.

The interim order passed  on Dt.20.10.2016   by this forum  made final with the above direction.

Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this      7th.   Day of   June,  2018.

 

Member.                                             Member.                                                             President