The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Junior Engineer, Srijung Electric Section, Srijung, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O, R.E-II, Central Electrical Division, Balia, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Executive Engineer, Central Electric Division, Balasore.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a bonafide commercial Consumer bearing Consumer No.324101340037 vide old Account No.BS-53711 under the O.Ps and was paying his electric bills regularly to the O.Ps. The Complainant submitted that in due course of time, the O.Ps imposed false bills without taking actual meter reading, illegally demanded money from the Complainant and also imposed extra security deposits, for which the Complainant had filed complaint before GRF vide G.R.F C.C No.252 of 2010 and the GRF by his order dtd.27.09.2010 has instructed the O.P No.3 not to demand any illegal security amount from the Complainant. Thereafter, on 18.04.2014 and on 21.01.2014, the O.Ps also illegally demanded extra money from the Complainant, but the Complainant had not agreed to pay and the O.Ps disconnected the electric connection of the Complainant. The Complainant requested the O.Ps in several times for connection of the electric supply to the huller unit of the Complainant, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it. Suddenly on 03.02.2014, the Complainant got a regd. notice from the O.Ps that the O.Ps have falsely imposed Rs.77,635/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand six hundred thirty five) only on the Complainant showing false hooking by the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant has suffered from financial loss, mental agony and harassment, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. The Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation cost. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.
3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability. The O.Ps have further submitted that during spot verification of the premises of the Complainant, it was found that the Complainant was availing power supply unauthorisedly to his rice huller by means of hooking method by bypassing the meter by two number of phases from the nearest 25KVA Sub-Station. So, spot verification report was prepared and basing on it, provisional assessment order has been made U/s.126 of Electricity Act-2003 vide letter No.362, dtd.27.01.2014 for Rs.77,635/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand six hundred thirty five) only and requested the Complainant to file objection if any against the order within 7 days. But, the Complainant did not file any objection. Accordingly, final assessment order was prepared vide letter No.996, dtd.19.02.2014 for Rs.77,635/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand six hundred thirty five) only. Moreover, a “complaint” against the assessment made by the assessing Officer U/s.126 or against the offences committed U/s.135 to 140 of the Electricity Act-2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. The case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.
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) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
5. In order to substantiate their claim, both Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case. So, his pleading is his case. According to his pleading, the O.Ps imposed false bills without taking actual meter reading, illegally demanded money from the Complainant and also imposed extra security deposits, for which the Complainant had filed complaint before GRF vide G.R.F C.C No.252 of 2010 and the GRF by his order dtd.27.09.2010 has instructed the O.P No.3 not to demand any illegal security amount from the Complainant. Thereafter, on 18.04.2014 and on 21.01.2014, the O.Ps also illegally demand extra money from the Complainant, but the Complainant had not agreed to pay, for which the O.Ps disconnected the electric connection of the Complainant. The Complainant requested the O.Ps in several times for connection of the electric supply to the huller unit of the Complainant, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it. Suddenly on 03.02.2014, the Complainant got a regd. notice from the O.Ps that the O.Ps have falsely imposed Rs.77,635/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand six hundred thirty five) only on the Complainant showing false hooking by the Complainant, which causes mental agony and harassment and it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. Thus, the Complainant has filed this case praying for compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that during spot verification of the premises of the Complainant, they have found that the Complainant was availing power supply unauthorisedly to his rice huller by means of hooking method by bypassing the meter by two number of phases from the nearest 25KVA Sub-Station. So, spot verification report was prepared. Thereafter, observing necessary formalities of Law, provisional assessment U/s. 126 of Electricity Act-2003 was prepared for Rs.77,635/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand six hundred thirty five) only, which was served to the Complainant vide letter No.362, dtd.27.01.2014 and accordingly, final assessment order was prepared for Rs.77,635/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand six hundred thirty five) only, which was also served to the Complainant vide letter No.996, dtd.19.02.2014. 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 28th day of May, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
