PRESIDENT
1) By this complaint the Complainant has prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to refund Rs.68,000/- raised by the Opposite Party and recovered from the complaint by its Vigilance Department and Rs.5 Lacs as compensation for harassment, mental torture and fraud played by the Opposite Party and wrongful and illegal raid. The Complainant has prayed Rs.50,000/- as cost of this complaint from the Opposite Party.
2) According to the Complainant, the notice issued to the Complainant alleging that he had committed the offence punishable u/s.135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for having committed theft of electricity or interference with meters or work of licenses is misconceived and illegal. The Complainant has given the details of the raid effected by Vigilance Department of the Opposite Party regarding the electric supply obtained by the Complainant for his residential premises and alleged that the said action on the part of the Opposite Party is illegal and improper and therefore, the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
3) The Opposite Party contested the complaint by its written version and contended that the vigilance raid was carried out after proper investigation. The case of the Complainant is not finalized, whatever payment the Complainant had made to the Opposite Party is treated as deposit towards vigilance claim as per provision of 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. It is contended that the controversy involved in the present complaint is regarding a clear theft case registered under regulations of 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 and therefore, the Forum shall dismiss this case.
4) The Complainant has filed his affidavit in support of his allegations alongwith the complaint. He has filed his written argument. The Opposite Party has also filed its written argument. The Complainant and his advocate in spite of the notice remained absent at the time of oral arguments. We heard the argument of the Representative of the Opposite Party Shri. Nitin Bhosale.
5) On perusal of the documents placed on record by both sides, it appears that the Complainant has challenged the action taken by the Opposite Party u/s.135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Complainant has challenged the notice issued to him u/s.135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Opposite Party contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to go into legality and validity of the notice issued and action taken u/s.135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Opposite Party relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal 5466 of 2012, delivered on 01/07/2013, in the case of UP Power Corporation and Ors. V/s. Anis Ahmed. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that in view of the aforesaid judgment the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable and it be dismissed with cost. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that “A complaint against the assessment made by the Assessing Office u/s.126 or against the offence committed u/s.135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside passed by the National Commission. We therefore, hold that as the Opposite Party lodged the police complaint u/s.135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the ground that the Complainant had committed theft of electricity, thus, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Cited Supra) the complaint filed by the Complainant before this Forum challenging the said action by this complaint taken by the Opposite Party u/s.126 and u/s.135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before this Forum. In the result the following order is passed –
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.227/2009 is dismissed being not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with no order as to cost.
ii. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
