Judgment : Dt.20.6.2017
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act by Sushil Chandra Mondal against Opposite Parties – (1) The Deputy Manager (LCC) CESC Ltd. and (2) Assessing Officer No.1 of CESC Ltd.
Case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party in respect of domestic meter No.2512849 Consumer No.13461019024 LP No.21/1/24 at Sapa Mirza Nagar, Rampur, P.O.-(M) Gobindapur, P.S.-Maheshtala, Dist.- South 24 Pgs. It is stated by the Complainant that he has one connection used by his residential purpose and also running an cycle repairing shop thereon and average monthly bill amount is Rs.1,500/- p.m. It is stated that all on a sudden on 14.10.2016 at 12.20 p.m. an authorized person of the OP came and disconnected the meter delivering a notice by hand and forced the Complainant’s brother Sri Dinesh Mondal to put his signature therein and from the said notice the Complainant came to know that the said authorized person came to inspect the electric supply line although no inspection was done in reality. It is further stated by the Complainant that subsequently the OP No.2 issued a notice dt.14.10.2016 which the Complainant received on 19.10.2016 and found very much shocking that the OP No.2 made out a reason for disconnection of the said meter on the ground that “Seal on terminal plate found tampered with” incoming phase and neutral loops found interchanged at meter terminals and consumer using external earth connection through a connecting/ disconnecting mechanism. It is stated that the Complainant was given an opportunity for hearing on 25.10.216 on this issue but no hearing was conducted on that day rather OP demanded verbally deposit an extra amount of Rs.1,030/- without any proper document. The Complainant requested the OP No.2 for reconsideration of the penalty amount of Rs.74,375/- which had already been assessed by the assessing officer for unauthorisesd use of electricity but to no effect. It is stated by the Complainant that a notice dt.14.10.2016 sent by the nodal officer of the OP and the same received by the Complainant on 22.10.2016 at 5.49p.m. vide which the OP informed the Complainant that on inspection of the aforesaid premises on 14.10.2016 it was found that theft of electricity was committed in respect of the said connection and therefore the same has been disconnected and the matter has been informed to Maheshtala P.S. by them. It is further stated by the Complainant is that it is fact that as per disconnection notice dt.14.10.2016 at 12.20p.m. in respect of LP 22/1/24 and correspondences made by the OP to the Complainant in respect of disputed meter and the same is very much contradictory and baseless since the LP No. of the Complainant is not identical to the LP No. mentioned in the notice dt.14.10.2016.
The Complainant also mentioned that the local club namely Shib Sangha took electric connection on 30.10.2015 due to Kali Puja occasion with permission of the OP from the meter of the Complainant for short term supply of the Electricity for which the OP received Rs.2,295/- from the said Club but, thereafter, in spite of disconnection of the temporary connection the OP did not remove the loop from the terminal and has not sealed the terminal and, therefore, there is no latches on the part of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OPs to restore the supply of electricity in the schedule property, to pay Rs.60,000/- towards compensation and Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost.
The Opposite Parties appeared and contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegation made out in the petition of complaint and stating inter alia, that during an inspection at the premises of the Complainant at Sapamirzanagar on 14.10.2016 by the authorized officer in presence of the assessing officer with prior notice in terms of regulation 8.3.3 of the W.B. Electricity Regulatory Com (Electricity supply code) Regulation 2013 to the consumer Sushil Chandra Mondal, it was detected that the consumer / beneficiary / user of meter No.2512849 deliberately and for financial benefit has been indulging in unauthorized use of electricity by tampering the seal on terminal plate and interchanging the incoming phase and neutral loops at meter terminals and using external earth through a connecting/ disconnecting mechanism. It is further stated by the OP that upon such detection, the supply to the aforesaid premises was immediately disconnected and written complaint was lodged with the Maheshtala P.S. and also some photographs were taken for evidence of theft of electricity. It is further stated by the OP that after disconnection of the aforesaid connection, the nodal officer of the Lost Control Cell CESC Ltd. issued two letters on the same day that is on 14.10.2016 both under reference of LRP/03035/2016 addressing the consumer by first letter he was informed about disconnection of supply on 11.8.2016 due to detection of unauthorized use of electricity and by the 2nd letter the consumer was informed in details about the allegation including the complaint lodged with Maheshtala P.S. It is further stated that as per assessment of the assessing officer an amount of Rs.74,375/- was assessed towards charge for the unauthorized use of electricity and the same was intimated to the consumer with an opportunity to hear the matter on 25.10.2016 and the consumer fail to appear before the assessing officer on the said date. It is also stated by the OP that the Complainant pertaining to unauthorised use of electricity/theft of electricity is not maintainable under the C.P.Act in the light of the judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in civil appeal No.5466 of 2012 [UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. VS Anis Ahmed]. Accordingly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the petition of complainant with cost.
Decision with reasons
On perusal of the petition of complaint and documents annexed thereto, it appears that the point of dispute cropped up between the parties regarding the said unauthorized extension of load of energy in respect of which the Assessing Officer passed an order. To determine that whether such issue is entertainable under the C.P.Act, we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (3) CPR 670 (SC)[UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors V. Anis Ahmad] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court pleased to hold that ‘The acts of 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 fall within 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’.
In the result, the petition of complaint does not succeed.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/561/2016 is dismissed on contest.
