Orissa

Rayagada

CC/46/2017

Radha Shyam Kana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The JE South Co - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S.Srinivas Sastry

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 46 / 2017.                                Date.      22  .2. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Radha  Shyam Kanu, S/O: Motilal Kanu, At:Gandhi Nagar, Ist. Lane,

Po/ Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                         …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Junior Engineer, Section No.2, SOUTH.CO., Near Girls High School,  Rayagada.

2. The Vigilence and Enforcment Office, Enforcement Cell, SOUTH.CO., Seriguda, Rayagada.                                                                                                       .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri S. Srinivas Sastry, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps :- Deputy  Manager (Legal), South.Co., Rayagada.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes emerges out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for challenging the revenue assessment notice Dt. 28.3.2017 of  Electricity connection bearing consumer No.311102600265. The   brief facts of the case are summaried here under.

       1)That the complainant is a consumer  of electricity having connection  bearing consumer No. 311102600265 with connected load of 2 K.W.  It was alleged that the SOUTH. Co Vigilence Squard on Dt. 25.3.2017 got his premises  inspected  by its team and subsequently  sent a notice to him on Dt. 28.3.2017. In the said notice  it  was alleged that the Enforcement team on inspection made on  Dt. 25.3.2017 found that  the complainant was using  excess load of   3 K.W. The complainant  challenged  the bill Dt. 28.3.2017  for Rs. 68,234.00  raised by the O.P. He prayed to direct the O.P. to  correct the bill  and withdraw the demand  notice  and to pay the costs.

       2)On being noticed  the Deputy  Manager (Legal), South.Co., Rayagada appeared in person before the  forum  and  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum.   The O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents,   filed by the parties. 

The  parties advanced arguments vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record  we observed  there is no dispute  that the complainant is a consumer  and availed  service from the O.Ps   bearing consumer No. 311102600265 and paying  monthly consumption bills of  electricity.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complaint petition under section  126 of the Electricity Act, 2003  is  maintainable under   C.P. Act ?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2013(3) page No. 670 in  the case of U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. &  Others  Vrs. Anis Ahmad   where  in the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed “In case of unconsistency between  the  Electricity Act, 2003 and  the C.P.Act, 1986, the provisions of C.P.Act  will prevail, but  ipso facto it will not vest the  Consumer forum with the power to redress any dispute with  regard  to the matters which do not come within the  meaning of “Service” as defined  under  section 2(1)(O) or “complaint” as defined  under section 2(1)© of the C.P. Act, 1986. 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 with 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. The commission has already noticed that the  offences referred to  in Section- 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special court  constituted under section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint  against any action taken under Sections-135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer  Forum. 

                Again it is held and reported in CPR  -  2013(3) page No.544 the Hon’ble  National Commission where in observed “ Complaint  concerning power theft and penality is not maintainable before Consumer Forum”

In view of the order passed by the  Apex Court  the complaint filed in the present case before the forum  is not maintainable. Accordingly, without  going into the merits of the case, this forum dismiss  the above complaint petition  with liberty to the complainant to seek appropriate remedy available to him before the appropriate forum. To meet the ends of justice  the following order is passed.

ORDER

In resultant the complaint petition is    stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

            We ordered  the OPs not to claim any amount   towards provisional assessment order U/S- 126(2) of Electricity Act, 2003 demand notice Dt. 28.3.2017  a sum of Rs. 68,234/- as demanded  by them and they can only claim the complainant the regular consumption bill  till finalization of the petition by the appellate authority. We do not award any cost or compensation. Parties are  left  to bear their own cost.

            It is held and reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583  the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed   “The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act.

Pronounced in open forum today on this     22^nd.         day of February,  2018 under the seal and signature of this forum.  A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

Member                                             Member.                                                 President