Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.10.2017
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to consider and dispose of the application dated 16.03.2015 of the complainant by reasoned and speaking order.
- To direct the opposite parties to revise the energy bill of January 2015 after deducting the extra amount of Rs. 24,593/- and restore the supply of electricity to the premise of the complainant.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that the complainant is having BS – II connection in his premises being consumer number 44513. His premises was inspected on 11.01.2011 without following the prescribed procedure and after inspection and search, the complainant was directed to deposit amount of Rs. 1,04,565/- in the office of opposite party no. 2. The complainant has filed objection before opposite party no. 2. The assessing officer after considering the matter on the record passed final order directing the complainant to pay the revised punitive bill of Rs. 27,807/- as will appear from annexure – 1 and 2.
It is further asserted that thereafter complainant submitted an application before Electrical Engineer, Ashok Raj Path, Patna stating therein that complainant is ready to pay 50% of the electricity bill so that the supply of electricity may be restored. Thereafter the complainant submitted the required amount as will appear from annexure – 3 and 4.
It is further case of the complainant that as per final assessment order the complainant was required to deposit Rs. 27,807/- but the complainant has already deposited total amount of Rs. 52,400/- i.e. Rs. 24,593/- excess. The complainant again approached opposite party no. 2 to refund the extra amount of Rs. 24,593/- but he was informed that the aforesaid amount will be adjusted in the electricity bill issued by electricity board.
It is further case of the complainant that when he received energy bill for January 2015 without adjusting the aforesaid excess amount. Thereafter opposite party no. 2 sent a letter to opposite party no. 1 for adjusting the extra money deposited by the complainant as will appear from annexure – 5 and 6.
The grievance of the complainant is that despite his application dated 16.03.2015 i.e. annexure – 7 series, the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed and the aforesaid amount has not been adjusted.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a written statement has been filed stating therein that as this case relates to theft of electricity energy hence this complaint is not maintainable as the action U/s 135 of electricity act.
In Para – 3 and 4 of written statement following facts have been asserted, “that the real fact is that a raid was conducted on 11.01.2011 by the officials of the Board namely Md. Naushad Rizvi ( JEE Mussallahpur), Sri Suresh Prasad Singh, ( Dy Magistrate DM Control Room), Sri Shiv kant Sharma, ( JLM Mussallahpur), Sri Baikunth Pandi, ( JLM Mussallahpur) on confidential report. In course of raid it was found that the complainant was by – passing energy meter and accordingly Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 14/2011 was lodged against the complainant U/s 135 of Electricity Act 2003.”
“that after raid, subsequently action was taken based on Electricity Act, 2003 and Electricity Supply Code, 2007. The consumer Sri Sita Ram was provided provisional assessment first. After hearing to the objections of consumer, he was served with the final assessment. Since the factor was incorrectly used in computation of energy loss, therefore in final assessment order the factor was corrected from I do 0.3;and hence a revised assessment was served to the complainant vide letter dated 16.03.2011 ( annexure – 1 to the complaint petition).”
Heard the parties.
At the time of hearing of this case the learned counsel for the complainant has confined his prayer to Para – 15 A of this complaint whereby and where under it is stated that the opposite parties be directed to dispose the application dated 16.03.2015 with reasoned order.
No any rejoinder of the written statement has been filed by the complainant.
However, from bare perusal of written statement as well as application of complainant contained in annexure – 7 series of the complaint, it is crystal clear that action has been taken by opposite parties U/s 135 of electricity act.
It goes without saying that as per law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC) Supreme Court of India. UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Others ……….. Appellants Versus Anis Ahmad ………. Respondent, this Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any order with regard to action taken U/s 135 to 140 of electricity act 2003.
It goes without saying that the action has been taken U/s 135 of electricity act 2003 and hence we have no jurisdiction to entertain such type of complaint.
So far the prayer of the complainant contained in Para – 15 (a) of complaint, it is stated that from bare perusal of annexure – A of written statement it is crystal clear that Assistant Electricity Engineer ( Revenue) Electrical Supply Pramandal, Rajendra Nagar, Patna has considered the grievance of the complainant made in annexure – 7 series and issued a fresh bill vide annexure – A of the written statement.
However, it will open to the complainant to agitate his grievance before competent authority or Court etc.
For the discussion made above this complaint is being dismissed for not being maintainable.
Member President
