The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Junior Engineer (Electrical), NESCO, Baliapal Division, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O (Electrical), NESCO, Jamsuli and O.P No.3 is the Executive Engineer, Electrical, Basta Division.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a bonafide domestic Consumer under the O.Ps bearing new A/c No.322203050386 and old A/c No.JKJ-23599 having contract demand of ½ K.W and was paying electric bills regularly to the O.Ps. The O.Ps made claims of energy charges on average basis for the month of June, 2016 to till date and unit per month to the tune of 72 units without taking meter reading, since the meter was defective till date. The Complainant received a bill of Rs.6,681/- (Rupees Six thousand six hundred eighty one) only from the O.Ps without taking meter reading by the O.Ps, for which the Complainant has requested the O.Ps on several occasions in written and orally to install a new meter and revise the bill, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it, rather threatened the Complainant to impose penalty bill falsely and also to disconnect the electric line of him, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps. Thereafter on 20.09.2017, the officials of O.Ps entered into the premises of the Complainant and disconnected the electric line of the Complainant, causing harassment to the Complainant. Cause of action to file this case arose on 20.09.2017. The Complainant has prayed for revision of bill along with compensation and litigation cost.
3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps have further submitted that the Complainant is a regular defaulter Consumer in payment of monthly energy charges. The meter installed in the premises of the Complainant became defective in the month of May-2016, for which billing was done on load factor basis @ 72 units per month as per tariff regulation. The spot verification by the verification squad was made on 07.07.2016 in presence of his wife, where the O.Ps have found that the Complainant was availing power supply dishonestly by jointing the incoming connection and outgoing connection wire together by by-passing the meter. Accordingly, a spot verification report was prepared and she was requested to sign on the same report, but she refused to sign, for which power supply was disconnected on the spot. Thereafter, the provisional assessment U/s.126 of I.A Act, 2003 has been prepared for Rs.2,933/- (Rupees Two thousand nine hundred thirty three) only and the copy was served to the Complainant through a special messenger, but the Complainant refused to receive and also refused to attend on hearing. Thus, final assessment order was prepared on 27.07.2016 for Rs.2,933/- (Rupees Two thousand nine hundred thirty three) only. But, the Complainant has neither paid the penal bill nor appealed before the appellate authority, rather filed this case in this Forum. Hence, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?
(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that the O.Ps claimed energy charges on average basis to the tune of 72 units per month for the month of June, 2016 to till date without taking meter reading, since the meter was defective till date. Thereafter, the Complainant received a bill of Rs.6,681/- (Rupees Six thousand six hundred eighty one) only from the O.Ps without taking meter reading by the O.Ps, for which he has requested the O.Ps on several occasions to install a new meter and revise the bill, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it, rather threatened the Complainant to impose penalty bill falsely and also to disconnect the electric line of him, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. On 20.09.2017, the officials of O.Ps entered into the premises of the Complainant and disconnected the electric line of the Complainant, causing harassment to the Complainant, for which he has filed this case in this Forum praying for revision of bill along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that the Complainant is a regular defaulter Consumer in payment of monthly energy charges. The meter installed in the premises of the Complainant became defective in the month of May-2016, for which billing was done on load factor basis @ 72 units per month as per tariff regulation. On 07.07.2016, the O.Ps have verified the premises of the Complainant in presence of his wife, where they have found that the Complainant was availing power supply dishonestly by jointing the incoming connection and outgoing connection wire together by by-passing the meter. Thus, a spot verification report was prepared and the wife of the Complainant refused to sign on it, for which power supply was disconnected on the spot. Thereafter, observing necessary formalities of Law, provisional assessment order U/s.126 of Electricity Act, 2003 was prepared for Rs.2,933/- (Rupees Two thousand nine hundred thirty three) only and the copy was served to the Complainant through a special messenger, but the Complainant refused to receive and also refused to attend on hearing. Thus, final assessment order was prepared on 27.07.2016 for Rs.2,933/- (Rupees Two thousand nine hundred thirty three) only. But, the Complainant has neither complied the assessment order made by the O.Ps nor appealed before the appellate authority, rather filed this case in this Forum. So, when there is an assessment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. However, in view of the authority reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that complaint against assessment made U/s.126 or action taken against those committing offences U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003, held, is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. Civil Court’s jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect to the decision of assessing Officer U/s.126 or with respect to a decision of the appellate authority U/s.127 is barred U/s.145 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, it is clear that 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, hence, also the complaint against any action taken under Sections-135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section-3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections-173, 174 and 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation 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.
6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority along with an application for condonation of delay, if desired/ required. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 10th day of April, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
