Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.08.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 90,000/- ( Rs. Ninety thousand only ) as compensation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted in his complaint petition that on 11.06.2009 at about 6:30 P.M. opposite party no. 2 to 6 along with others unknown persons came to his house and opposite party no. 2 stated that he was making raid. The complainant replied that he is a bonafide consumer having three electricity connection and paying the regular bill but the opposite party no. 2 did not believe the word of the complainant and checked entire building of the complainant.
It is the further case of complainant that during raid nothing was found and even meter of the complainant was checked on his request by opposite party no. 2 but despite complainant’s requested, the opposite party no. 2 did not furnished no fault certificate to the complainant rather he threatened him to send jail.
Thereafter, opposite party no. 3 to 6 made contact with the son of the complainant in his absence and threatened that (he) complainant will go to jail if he will not pay Rs. 10,000/-. His son gave Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no. 3 in presence of opposite party no. 4,5 and 6 and the opposite parties extracted promise from his son to pay Rs. 9,000/-. When the aforesaid amount was not given to opposite party no. 2 then he began to harass the complainant in the name of discharging public duty. Opposite parties without relevant sense entered in the house of the complainant, searched all the building of the complainant and broken the electric meter he also threatened dire consequences if his demand are not fulfilled.
On behalf of opposite parties written statement has been filed in which the deponent is Chandra Shekhar Kumar the then Assistant electrical engineer, electric supply Sub – Division, Khagaul. In this written statement it has been stated by the opposite parties that the complainant has electric connection no. PSB – 1717/PPS 08993 of NSD – II category for commercial use. The complainant is consuming electric energy at ground floor in a guesthouse and two medical shops. In Para – 4 of the written statement he has been stated, “that on 11.06.2009 during surprise load verification it was detected by the raiding party that the complainant had unauthorizedly enhanced 2 KW load more than the sanctioned load of connection no. PSB-1717/PPS 08993 of NSD – II category. The raid was conducted in presence of the complainant but the complainant refused to sign the inspection report” ( vide annexure – A).
The opposite parties have also denied the fact stated in page – 3 of complaint petition and have stated that no three phase connection has been taken by the complainant and complainant has concocted story as an afterthought with an oblique purpose to shirk the penal liability on account of using unauthorizedly enhanced load of NSD connection which has been detected in surprise load verification by the raiding party comprising of the officers of the board headed by electrical executive engineer, electric supply Division, Danapur.
It has been also asserted that during the raid of second connection of DS – II category with consumer no. 342356/613 it was found that the complainant is consuming electric energy for commercial use in guesthouse and second for the domestic connection. The raid was conducted in presence of the complainant but he refused to sign on inspection report ( vide annexure – B). Thereafter the aforesaid report along with forwarding letter no. 264 dated 17.07.2009 was sent through speed post but the same was returned unserved with a note of postal peon “ refused” ( vide annexure – C and D). it has been also stated in Para – 10 of written statement that the complainant was consuming electrical energy in commercial use in two medical shop and guesthouse in ground floor as well as second floor and as such he does not come under the definition of consumer and as such this complaint petition is not maintainable.
On behalf of the complainant the reply to the aforesaid written statement filed on behalf of opposite parties have been filed stating therein that in house of the complainant there are three phases of electric connection in which two are commercial and one is domestic. It has been also stated that opposite party no. 2 has no knowledge about the reality of the fact because his department has approved three phase and also the complainant is paying regular bill.
In Para – 4 of the reply the complainant asserted that the complainant has two electrical connection vide PSB – 1717/PPS as well as PSB – 716 for 4 KW and one domestic connection vide no. 342356 for 3 KW. There is no guesthouse of complainant. It is further stated that when the complainant did not receiv inspection report then the copy of the same must have been handed to other members of the family or the same may have been sent through messenger or post within time which was not done, other allegation of opposite parties have been denied by the complainant.
On behalf of opposite parties a rejoinder of the aforesaid reply of the complainant has been filed repeating the same fact as has been done in written statement. In Para – 3 of the aforesaid rejoinder it is stated that the complainant has electric connection no. PSB – 1717/PPS 08993 of NS- II category for commercial use through NDS – II connection. The complainant was consuming electric energy at the ground floor in a guesthouse and medical shop. It has been further stated in Para – 8 of rejoinder that during surprise load verification it was detected by the raiding party that the complainant has unauthorizedly enhanced 2 KW load more than sanctioned load of connection no. PSB -1717/PPS 08993 of NS – Ii category with regard to DS – II category having connection no. 342356/613. It was found by the raiding party that the complainant is consuming electrical connection for commercial use.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder have been filed denying the allegation of the opposite parties.
On behalf of complainant a supplementary affidavit has been filed stating therein that opposite parties issued an energy bill for the month of January 14 amounting to Rs. 1,21,373/- malafidely and after protest it was corrected to Rs. 1,290/-.
-
We have gone through the entire record of the case in the light of submission of the parties. On behalf of complainant it has been asserted that the opposite party no. 2 with other opposite parties raided his house but nothing was found but they refuse to issue no fault certificate.
It has been further asserted that in absence of complainant the opposite parties met his son and threatened that if he will not pay Rs. 10,000/- then the complainant will be sent to jail and out of fear his son had paid Rs. 1,000/- and promised to pay Rs. 9,000/-.
On behalf of the complainant two question has been raised firstly that as the complainant was consuming electrical energycommercial use through NDS – II connection as well as Ds – II connection and as such this case is not maintainable. The second objection is that after raid if the action has been under Section 126 of the Electricity Act hence this Forum has no jurisdiction.
Let us examine the aforesaid facts. The complainant in Para – 3 to the reply to the written statement has stated that in the house of the complainant two are commercial and one is domestic connection. It is needless to say that in the whole of application the complainant has not asserted that the aforesaid commercial use of the electricity was essential for his day to day survival. It is needless to say that under Section 2(D) of consumer protection act the commercial use of electricity is not covered.
As per complainant himself the one connection was with respect to domestic connection. With regard to this it has been asserted by the opposite parties that at the time of raid on 11.06.2009 the complainant was consuming electric energy for commercial purpose with enhanced 2 KW load more.
From perusal of annexure – B which is inspection report dated 11.06.2009 it is crystal clear that the same has been filed under Section 126 of electricity act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Citation reported in III (2013 CPJ I (SC) Supreme Court of India G.S. Singhvi & Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others Vrs. Anis Ahmad has been pleased to hold that a “ complaint” against the assessment made by assigning officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under 135 to 140 of the electricity act is maintainable before consumer forum.
It is needless to say that from perusal of annexure – B, C and D it transpires that the complainant refused to received the copy of inspection report and as such the postal peon written report as “refused”.
From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it transpires that as there is allegation and counter allegation between the parties which can not be decided in this forum as this forum has no jurisdiction to decide disputed facts.
For the discussion made above we find and hold that this forum has no jurisdiction to decide this case as the assessment/ inspection report has been filed under Section 126 of electricity act and due to commercial use, the complainant is not consumer as per the section 2 (D) of the consumer protection act.
However it is open to the complainant to take appropriate steps by filing appropriate application before the appropriate court or forum for redressal of his grievance as we have not decided this case on merit.
For the discussion made above this complaint stands dismissed but without costs.
Member President
