Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                     President

                    (2)      Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

                    (3)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order: 09.07.2015

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-

1. To pay the claim amount of Rs. 19,85,256/- ( Rs. Nineteen lac Eighty Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Six only ) with interest from date of filling of this case till the date of payment.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant is a consumer of South Bihar Power holding Company ( SBPHC ) formerly known as Bihar State Electricity Board ( BSEB ) having Consumer No. 145883 since 1989 in the name of late father of the petitioner Uma Shankar Prasad was being regularly deposited the electricity bill without delay and there was no complain against him till 26.08.2013.
2. It is pertinent to state that in May 2012, a new meter was installed in the residential premises of the complainant by the then Executive Engineer and Assistant Electric Engineer and load was assessed to be 1.5 kw.
3. The complainant most respectfully states and submits that till 26.08.2013, the said meter was used to be read by the meter reader after taking videography of the meter and the Bills used to be deposited as per the meter reading without any complain of breaking or tampering of the meter.
4. On 26.08.2013 at 10:37A.M. the aforesaid meter of the petitioner was read by the meter reader showing the connected load to be 2kw after taking reading of the meter of the complainant and it appears from the said bill that no objection was raised by the meter reader regarding the tampering and breaking of the seal of the meter of the petitioner. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
5. The complainant most respectfully states that at 4 P.M. in the evening on 26.08.2013, when the complainant was in High Court he was utterly shocked to hear on telephone from his wife, that opposite party no. 5 forcibly entered with his team in the house of the complainant on the pretext of inspection of the meter of the complainant and break the seal of the meter and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lac only ) from the wife of the complainant and extended threat of implication in false case if the aforesaid amount is not paid. 
6. The complainant immediately rushed to his residence and when saw that the seal of the meter was broken and the electricity connection was also disconnected and when the complainant objected to that then he was subjected to humiliation and threat by opposite party no. 5 and his team.
7. The complainant respectfully states that he is the Regional In – Charge of a political party namely Bhartiya janta Party due to which some posters of leaders of BJP were pasted on some Boards having in the residence of the complainant and opposite party no. 5 has great objection and grudge against the aforesaid political party for the reasons best known to him and the reason why the complainant has been met with such harassment and torture at the hands of opposite party no. 5, who is exercising his authority by using colourable exercise of power, for which the complainant should be paid compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- ( Rs. Ten Lac only )  
8. It would not be out of place to mention that under coercion and threat of disconnection of electricity and lodging of F.I.R. opposite party no. 5 obtained signature of petitioner on blank Inspection report and did not even supply a copy of the said report obviously the said report was blank.
9. The complainant raised valid objection before the Higher authorities against the conduct of opposite party no. 5 and his team but too no avail. He was constraint to deposit the penalty / provisional assessment amounting to Rs. 35,156/- ( Rs. Thirty Five Thousand one Hundred Fifty Six only ) with objection on 29.08.2013 but in spite of that the electricity connection of the petitioner was not restored. ( Vide Annexure – 2 )
10. It is pertinent to state that aforesaid amount of Rs. 35,156/- was only told orally to the complainant and after depositing of the same by the complainant the opposite party supplied the copy of provisional assessment and so – called inspection report and the written report to the Police Station along with the receipt. ( Vide Annexure 3 )
11. It appears from the provisional assessment order contained in letter No. 209 dated 27.08.2013 passed by assessment officer that the complainant was directed to be present on 12.09.2013 at 2 P.M. with his objection against the aforesaid and accordingly the complainant appeared before the assessment officer, i.e. opposite party no. 4 Executive Engineer with his objection, but till date neither any final assessment has been done nor electricity was supplied to the house of the complainant has been restored by the respondent authorities. Although it was mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2013 that final assessment would be done till 16.09.2013. ( Vide Annexure – 4 )
12. It is most respectfully stated that the complainant was complete surprised to see that inspection report time was shown to be 3 :10 P.M. and meter was shown to be tampered and broken and connected load was also inflated to be 2.286 kw by inserting 3 bulbs of 100 watts and 11 fans of 60 watts and 10 CFL of 18 watts although the house of complainant consist of only 6 room in which 6 fans are there and the family of the complainant also consist for only four members including the complainant his wife and two children.
13. The petitioner deposited the entire provisional demand served upon the petitioner on 30.08.2013 and also reconnection charge of Rs. 100/- on the very same day but, the electricity was not connected to his house which constrained the complainant to move this Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 20004 of 2013, which was heard and disposed of by the Hon’ble Patna High Court vide order dated 31.10.2013 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. ( Vide Annexure – 5 and 6 )
14. It appears from the aforesaid order dated 31.10.2013 contained in Annexure 6 that the Hon’ble Patna High Court has observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to move before consumer forum for claiming damages for failure to connect electricity immediately upon payment and hence this petition has been filed before this Forum.

3. The Opposite Parties in their written statement has stated the following facts in opposition to the submission of the complainant:-

1. The instant complaint case has filed by the complainant is not maintainable before the District Forum because the documents which have been enclosed with a complaint petitioner do not make out a case of consumer dispute in so far as the matter relates to theft of power and un authorized use of electricity as per Section 135 and 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 for which a separate adjudication is permissible in the law, and not before the consumer forum.  
2. Complainant earlier filed writ application vide CWJC No. 20004/2013 before Hon’ble High Court, Patna for the same relief as made in the present complaint petition which was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2013 with liberty to the complaint to move the consumer redressal forum constituted under Electricity Act 2003 for claiming damages. However ignoring the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, the complainant has brought the present complaint case under the Consumer Protection Act, which was neither of the order of Hon’ble High Court nor High Court ever directed the petitioner to avail the remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the present complaint case is abuse of the process of law as such the same out to be dismissed in limine.
3. It is further make clear that the matter pertaining to the power theft or unauthorized use of electricity is the matter to be adjudicated before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction and the damages if any suffered by the complainant is to be adjudicated under the provisions of tort which is ad-judicable before the civil jurisdiction. The complainant having not complied the liberty as given by the High Court, the proceeding in the present complaint case under the provisions of C.P. Act cannot be sustainable.

Perused the order of Hon’ble High Court, from which it appears that the Hon’ble Court in the concluding para of the Judgment has observed that Petitioner would be at liberty to move the Consumer Redressal Forum under the Electricity Act, 2003 for claiming damages for failure to connect electricity immediately upon payment and the Forum would decide the same on its own merit in accordance with Rules and Regulations in that regard.

In the light of the observation made by Hon’ble Court it appears that the proper forum for deciding the issue is Consumer Redressal Forum under the Electricity Act, 2003 and not the Consumer Forum constituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In the aforesaid circumstances the complaint case is disposed off in the light of observation made by Hon’ble Court.

However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the concerned forum for redressal of his grievances and the concerned forum will take into account the period consumed before this forum by the complainant for the purpose of condoning the delay, if any.

There will be no order as to costs.

Member(F)                      Member                      President