The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the S.D.O, Electrical, Markona Division, Markona, O.P No.2 is the J.E, Electrical, Balikhanda Electrical Section, Balikhanda and O.P No.3 is the Assistant Manager, Electrical, Markona.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a domestic Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.SM-29563 with contract demand of 2 K.W and paying the monthly electric bills to the O.Ps regularly. But, on 27.08.2015 at about 15 P.M, the O.Ps made spot verification in the premises of the Complainant to check electric installation. Accordingly, the O.Ps prepared spot verification report without proper verification and compelled the Complainant to put his signature in said report or else power supply will be disconnected. As such, the Complainant signed in the report, a copy of which was supplied to the Complainant and the O.Ps took away the meter. From the spot verification report, the Complainant came to know that the O.Ps illegally and arbitrarily mentioned that there is no seal in the meter, which is the offence as per Sec-135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and assessment as per Sec-126 of said Act. The Complainant has never broken the seal of the meter, rather informed the O.Ps in several times about damage of seal of the meter for low quality material, but the O.Ps remained silent till date of inspection. Though the meter was found OK, but the O.Ps prepared illegal and arbitrary verification report. Accordingly, the O.Ps issued provisional order on 27.08.2015 claiming of Rs.21,942/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand nine hundred forty two) only. Thus, the Complainant protested in writing to O.P No.1 on 11.09.2015 for erroneous bill and also requested for testing said meter and examining the truth of spot verification report and also stay of illegal assessment amount. On 22.08.2015 i.e. 5 days before the spot verification, the meter reader of O.Ps while taking meter reading has not reported either about tampering of meter or about non-existence of seal in the said meter. Such type of activities by the O.Ps amount to deficiency in service and causing mental agony and financial loss to the Complainant. Cause of action to file this case arose on 27.08.2015. The Complainant has prayed for revision of illegal bills imposed upon him along with payment of compensation for deficiency of service.

                    3. Though the O.Ps have appeared in this case through their Advocate, but they have filed their written version beyond the statutory period, for which the written version filed by the O.Ps was not accepted. The O.Ps are also set ex-parte. Neither the O.Ps nor their Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    4. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that the O.Ps made spot verification in his premises on 27.08.2015 at about 3.00 P.M to check electric installation and also prepared spot verification report without proper verification. Accordingly, they have supplied a copy of the verification report and also took away the meter. On perusal of the verification report, the Complainant came to know that the O.Ps have illegally and arbitrarily mentioned that there is no seal in the meter though the meter was found OK, which is a offence U/s.135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thereafter, the O.Ps issued provisional assessment order U/s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on 27.08.2015 amounting Rs.21,942/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand nine hundred forty two) only. Thus, the Complainant protested in writing to O.P No.1 for erroneous bill, but they did not pay any heed to it, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and causing mental agony and financial loss to the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant has filed this case praying for revision of illegal bills imposed upon him along with payment of compensation. On the other hand, the O.Ps are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier and neither the O.Ps nor their Advocate contested in hearing of this case. However, on perusal of the case record and documents available in it, we found that it is a case U/s.126 of Electricity Act-2003 for unauthorized use of electricity and there is an assessment, for which this case is not maintainable before this Consumer Forum and 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.

                    5. 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 ex-parte against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 24th day of December, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.