By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order to declare that the bill dated 16.05.2013 No.004520 issued to the complainant for Rs.16,083/- by the opposite party No.2 as null and void, also directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is a Consumer under LT VIIA tariff of the opposite party No.2 vide consumer No.2484 for residential Building. The complainant did not get building number from panchayath. While so on 14.05.2013 in the afternoon, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the opposite party along with the subordinates of opposite party No.2 made an inspection in the premises of the complainant and prepared a site Mahazer. On 18.05.2013, the complainant was served with a Bill demanding to pay Rs.16,083/- with due date of Rs.22.05.2013 and another date 06.06.2013 along with a carbon copy of the site Mahazer. The complainant's case is that opposite parties compelled the wife of the complainant to sign the site mahazer. The complainant had no dues with opposite parties. So the complainant alleges that the Bill is not sustainable and is against the provisions of law. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, Notices were issued to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, it is contented that the complainant availed electrical connection for construction purpose and no building number is obtained by the complainant in his residential building. The Bill is given on 16.05.2013 and not 18.05.2013 as stated in the complaint. The date of payment without surcharge is 23.05.2013 and not 22.05.2013. The date 06.06.2013 is the due date of payment before disconnection. All other allegations of complainant are denied by opposite parties. Under inspection, the squad noticed unauthorized additional load of 3307 watts in the premises of complainant. The sanctioned load to the premises of the complainant was 600 watts and at the time of inspection by the APTS, it is detected that the total connected load by the use of various electric equipments is 4307 watts. So the inspection is lawful and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint.
4. On going through the complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- Apart from version, the opposite party filed an I.A 208/2013 for a preliminary hearing on maintainability issue. In the petition, the opposite party contented that the assessment made by the assessing officer in the premises of the complainant is under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003. The Honorable Forum have no jurisdiction to try the case and declare the Bill issued by the opposite party as null and void. It is a settled position of law as laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in UP Power Corporation Limited and others Vs Anis Ahammed that the complaint against the assessment under section 126 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. In the light of the direction laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court, the above complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The copy of petition was served to the complainant and the complainant filed counter statement. The complainant stated that the ruling stated in the petition is not relating to the dispute in the above case. The bill in the dispute cannot be considered as an action under section 126 of Electricity Act. The assessment made by the assessing officer is not under 126 of Electricity Act. The assessment should be in the form of an Order. In the above matter, no order is served upon the complainant and only bill is served. In the bill there is no whisper that the same is Under section 126 of the Act. The bill is headed as “demand cum disconnection notice”. In the above case, since no order of provisional assessment was served upon the complainant, he would not resort to the relevant provision of the Act. Hence the above judgment is not applicable in this case and the Honorable Forum have jurisdiction to try the case. The Forum analyzed the matter and found that in the decision reported in 2013(3) KHCSN 19 (SC), in UP Power Corporation Limited and Others Vs Anis Ahammed, the Honorable Supreme Court verdicted that a complaint against assessment made by assessing officer under section 126 against offences committed under section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before a consumer Forum. Appeal under the provisions of the Electricity Act is the remedy. More over, a decision reported in CPR 2014 April Part 8, the Honorable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that cases falling within section 126 and 135 of Electricity Act are not maintainable before Consumer Fora and consumer should have recourse for redressal of his grievance before appropriate authority under Electricity Act. Where a question of dispute arises under section 126, 135 of the Electricity Act in a case, the Forum have no jurisdiction at all to try the case and analyze whether the dispute is actually coming under section 126 or not. The bill produced by the complainant shows that the Bill is prepared in consequences of an inspection made by the APTS. Even if the bill is not headed with the writing “under section 126 of the Electricity Act”. The bill is prepared on the basis of APTS inspection and the opposite party contents that it is issued under section 126 of the Act. The complainant never filed any appeal against the bill under the provisions of Electricity Act when he had such a remedy. So the contentions of the complainant is not sustainable. In the light of the above rulings and findings, the Forum found that the question under the dispute in this case cannot be tried by this Forum and the Forum had express bar of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, the above case is not maintainable before the Forum. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since Point No.1 is found against the complainant, no Order as to cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of September 2014.
Date of Filing:29.05.2013.
