SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P. Act, 2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the Junior Engineer, Electrical, Gopalpur Supply Section and OP No.2 is the SDO, Electrical, Bahanaga Sub-Division.
2. The case of the complainant, in a nutshell, is that the he is a bonafide domestic consumer under the Ops. He was supplied with the electrical energy to his residential house with energy load of 1 KW. He has further averred that due to storm and heavy rainfall his house was broken and rain water entered into the meter for which the same became defective. The complainant was ventilated the above fact to the Ops in writing on 24.9.2018. But the monthly energy bill was supplied with a high price. On several request, the Ops installed one new meter on 2.12.2019, but the said meter was found to be a defective one for which the complainant complained for changing of the defective meter and to correct the bill, but they turned a deaf ear to it. Lastly, the Ops supplied with an energy bill demanding Rs.32,431.00 from the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a petition before the GRF, NESCO, Balasore narrating the above grievances which was registered as GRE Case No.79/2020 and the date for hearing was fixed on 10.2.2020, but on the said date, the Ops remained absent and without being heard from his side, the matter was disposed of on 15.2.2020 against him. Therefore, the cause of action to file the case arose on 15.2.2020.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record -
- Photocopy of Electric bills.
- Photocopy of one application addressed to OP No.2.
- Photocopy of meter installation report.
- Photocopy of notice in GRF CC No.79 of 2020.
- Photocopy of the order passed by GRF, Balasore in Case No.79/20.
3. In the present case, the Ops have appeared and filed their written version. The Ops have stated in their written version, inter alia, that the complainant is a domestic consumer having contract demand of 1 KW load. On 18.8.2019, when the spot verification was made in the premises of the complainant, it was detected that the service connection wire was cut before meter and the complainant has bi-passed the electric supply to his house. That apart, no seal was in the meter terminal cover and no reading was displayed. When the spot verification report was supplied to the complainant, he refused to accept the same and did not sign on the report. However, the spot verification report was served on him through special messenger wherein the complainant was requested to file objection and to appear before the Assessing Officer. But the complainant did not choose to file any objection nor appear before the Assessing Officer for which final assessment order amounting to Rs.32,431.00 was passed and served on the complainant with a request either to deposit the said amount or to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority. The complainant filed case before the GRF, Balasore and on being heard order has been passed on 15.2.2020 giving opportunity to approach the Appellate Authority U/s 127 of Electricity Act, 2003. But the complainant without preferring any appeal before the appropriate authority, has filed the present before this Commission which is not at all maintainable and this Commission has no jurisdiction to sit over the matter.
In support of their case, the Ops have produced the following documents, which are placed in the record -
- Photocopy of spot verification report.
- Photocopy of provisional assessment order.
- Photocopy of final assessment order.
- Photocopy of the order dated 15.2.2020 passed in Case No.79/2020.
4. In view of the above averments, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
- Whether the present case is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops?
- To what other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
5. First of all, it is to be decided as to whether the complainant is a consumer under the Ops or not. No doubt, the complainant is a domestic consumer under the Ops. The Ops have also admitted that the complainant is a consumer under them. That apart, Annexure-1 to 5 prove itself that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops. Therefore, it is held that the complainant is a consumer.
6. For the shake of convenience and for better appreciation, issue No.ii to v are taken up together. Before delve into the merit of the case, it is felt necessary to discuss as to why the Ops have not supplied a new meter to the premises of the complainant and did not regularize the bill amount. In this connection, learned counsel for the complainant has specifically submitted that due to storm and heavy rainfall, his house was collapsed and rain water entered into the meter for which the same became defective. In spite of written complaint lodged by the complainant intimated the said fact to the Ops, monthly energy bill was supplied with a high price. On 2.12.2019, although the Ops installed a new meter, the same was found to be a defective one for which the complainant complained for changing of the defective meter and to correct the bill, but the Ops turned a deaf ear to it. Lastly, the Ops supplied with an energy bill demanding Rs.32,431.00 from the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a petition before the GRF, Balasore narrating the above grievances which was registered as GRE Case No.79/2020 and but without being heard from his side, the matter was disposed of on 15.2.2020 against him.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops, admitting the fact that the complainant is a consumer under them has urged that when the spot verification was made in the premises of the complainant, it was found that the service connection wire was cut before meter and the electricity energy has been bi-passed to his house. Further, no seal was in the meter terminal cover and no reading was displayed. When the spot verification report was supplied to the complainant, he refused to accept the same nor did he sign on the report for which the spot verification report was served on him through special messenger wherein he was asked to file objection and to appear before the Assessing Officer. But the complainant did not choose to file his objection nor appear before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, final assessment order amounting to Rs.32,431.00 was passed and served on the complainant with a request either to deposit the said amount or to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority. The complainant filed case before the GRF, Balasore and on being heard from both the sides, order was passed on 15.2.2020 wherein opportunity to approach the Appellate Authority U/s 127 of Electricity Act, 2003 was given, but the complainant, without preferring any appeal before the appropriate authority, has filed the present before this Commission which is not at all maintainable and further this Commission has no jurisdiction to sit over the matter.
8. In the backdrop of above rival pleadings of the parties, it is to be decided as to whether the complaint of the complainant is maintainable and is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops towards the complainant.
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.. In the present case, neither the complainant complied the assessment order made by the Assessment Officer nor preferred any appeal against the order passed by the GRF, Balasore. From the foregoing discussions, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. Consequently, deficiency in service on the part of the Ops does not arise at all.
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. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no cost.
Given under my hand and seal of this Commission, this the 27th day of June, 2023.
