SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-12 of C.P.A.-1986, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the Executive Engineer, Electrical, NESCO, Soro and OP No.2 is the S.D.O., Electrical, NESCO, Markona Division, Balasore.
2. The case of the complainants, in short, is that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops bearing consumer No.SM-73406. He used to pay the electric dues regularly till June, 2012 as per actual consumption and thereafter, the electric meter was found defective to which he informed the matter to the Ops, who assured him to install a new meter within a short period, but without rectifying the defects, they sent average bills, so the bill amount became high. It is the further case of the complainant that on repeated request made by him, the Ops did not correct the bill amount and threatened to disconnect the power supply to his premises. Thus, the complainant paid the pending bill amount on 29.9.2014. But in the month of September, 2014, the Ops intentionally served average bill amount to the tune of Rs.442.24 paisa and that too illegally imposed Rs.10,523.16 paisa excess bill, which the complainant was unable to pay. Thereafter, the complainant used to run post to pillar for revise the bill amount, but the Ops did not listen to it and threatened to disconnect the power supply to his premises. For such inaction on the part of the Ops and threatening, the complainant sustained mental agony and harassment.
The cause of action arose for filing of this case on 14.10.2014, when the Ops served illegal bill and on 17.10.2014, when the Ops denied to revise the excess bill amount. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present case. Hence, this case.
To substantiate their case, the complainants relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-
- Photocopy of electric Bill for the month of April, 2012 to December, 2012.
- Photocopy of electric Bill for the month of January, 2013 to December, 2013.
- Photocopy of electric Bill for the month of January, 2014 to September, 2014.
3. Both the Ops have appeared and filed their joint written version challenging the maintainability of the case and cause of action for filing the case. They have stated, inter alia, that the complainant is a domestic consumer having 1.00 KW load. On 1.8.2014, the verification team of NESCO was verified the premises of the complainant in his presence and found that he was availing power supply through secure meter having meter reading 7697 KW, but the bill was prepared in average basis by suppressing the actual meter reading. Therefore, bill has been prepared for the rest units consumed by the complainant for the period from May, 2012 to July, 2014. The CMR as on April, 2012 was 621 units and the final meter reading as on 1.8.2014 was 7697 units. Hence, the bill has been made for differential unit of 7076 units for 27 months amounting to Rs.10,269.40 paisa as per suppress meter reading from May, 2012 to July, 2014 has deducted from the actual billed amount and the rest amount of Rs.18,523/- is debited to the account of the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Further, this Commission has no jurisdiction to sit over the matter.
In order to prove their case, the Ops have relied upon the following documents which are placed in the case record –
- Photocopy of spot verification report.
- Photocopy of provisional assessment order.
- Photocopy of calculation sheet.
4. During course of hearing, it is argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant used to pay the electric dues regularly till June, 2012 as per actual consumption and thereafter, as the electric meter was found defective, he informed the matter to the Ops, who assured him to install a new meter within a short period, but without rectifying the defects, they sent average bills, so the bill amount became high. It is further argued that on repeated request made by the complainant, the Ops did not correct the bill amount, rather they threatened to disconnect the power supply to his premises. So, the complainant paid the pending bill amount on 29.9.2014. But in the month of September, 2014, the Ops intentionally served average bill amount @ Rs.442.24 paisa and that too illegally imposed Rs.10,523.16 paisa excess bill, to which the complainant was unable to pay.
5. On the other hand, during course of hearing, learned counsel for Ops submitted that on 1.8.2014, the verification team of NESCO was verified the premises of the complainant in his presence and found that he was availing power supply through secure meter having meter reading 7697 KW, but the bill was prepared in average basis by suppressing the actual meter reading. Therefore, bill has been prepared for the rest units consumed by the complainant for the period from May, 2012 to July, 2014. The CMR as on April, 2012 was 621 units and the final meter reading as on 1.8.2014 was 7697 units. Hence, the bill has been made for differential unit of 7076 units for 27 months amounting to Rs.10,269.40 paisa as per suppress meter reading from May, 2012 to July, 2014 has deducted from the actual bill amount and the rest amount of Rs.18,523/- is debited to the account of the complainant. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Further, this Commission has no jurisdiction to sit over the matter.
6. From the above rival submissions of both the parties, one thing is crept in the mind of this Commission that this is a clear case of an assessment order and the complainant has challenged the assessment order passed by the Ops.
In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in III (20213) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & others –v- Anis Ahmad have been pleased to observed that complaint against assessment made U/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. It is the Civil Court to sit upon the matter with respect to the decision of the assessing Officer. After notice of provisional assessment to the person alleged to have indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by an assessing Officer, who is a public servant, on the assessment of “unauthorized use of electricity” is a quasi-judicial decision and does not fall within the meaning of “consumer dispute” U/s 2(1)(e) of Consumer Protection Act. Offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted U/s 153 of Electricity Act, 2003, thus, also the complaint against any action taken U/s 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Section 173, 174 & 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot drive power to adjudicate a dispute relating to assessment made U/s 126 or offences U/s 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity” do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” as defined U/s 2(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the present case, neither the complainant complied the assessment order made by the Ops nor knocked the door of the Appellate Authority, as observed by the Hon’ble OMBUDSMAN-II, OERC, Bhubaneswar. From the foregoing discussions, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The complaint of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops without cost.
Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 04th day of September, 2023 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.
