Smt. Syeda Shahnur Ali, Member

This is a case for refund of quotation money from the OP.

In short, case of the Complainant, is that, he applied for permanent supply of electricity in his STW premises which was duly allowed by the Office of the OP and was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,13,500/- to facilitate this.  Complainant paid the said amount on 24-09-2010.  However, allegedly the OP did not provide any service connection.  So, the Complainant submitted repeated written applications on 11-11-2011, 18-02-2012 and so on, to refund the quotation money, but the OP paid no heed to such prayer.  On the contrary, the OP initiated one false case u/s 135 of the Electricity Act vide Case No. S.C.(E)-28(2) 2010 against the Complainant and four others, which was tried by the Ld. Special Court-cum-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk and on 16-01-2016, the case was decided in favour of the Complainant and others and all of them were found not guilty of the offence and were acquitted of the charges and the appeal period is also over.  However, the OP sat tight over the quotation money of the Complainant. The Demand Notice issued by the Complainant upon the OP in this regard also went in vain. So, this case.

OP contested the case by filing WV, whereby it denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  It is the further case of the OP that notwithstanding the Complainant has been exonerated of the charges, but the Ld. Judge has not passed any order to the effect that they were not duty bound to pay the pilferage bill.  For this purpose, Complainant is required to go through due process of law.  In support of its contention, the OP referred to an order dated 01-04-2008 of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in MAT No. 335/2008, CAN No. 3932 of 2008, W.P. No. 19087 (W) of 2007 in the matter of Abdulla Mia vs. WBSEDCL & Ors.  Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the case.

The moot point for consideration is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for by him or not.

Decision with reasons

Undisputedly, the Complainant applied for refund of quotation money from the OP amounting to Rs. 1,13,500/-, but is yet to get back the same.  Also not in dispute is the fact that the Complainant has been exonerated of the charges framed u/s 135 of the Electricity Act. 

Against this backdrop, the dispute revolves over the fact that whether or not the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for by him. 

It appears from the photocopy of letter dated 20-02-2016, issued by the OP to the Complainant that it asked the Complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 77,760/- that it finally assessed being the amount payable by the Complainant pertaining to its allegation of pilferage of electricity.  The Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, as we find, vide its order under reference has been pleased to lay down the law in this regard making it explicitly clear that mere acquittal by the Criminal Court ipso facto does not absolve a person from the liability of payment of the energy bills for the energy consumed by him by way of pilferage, so finally assessed by the distribution company.  One is to defend oneself in the civil proceeding initiated by the authority by making final assessment.  It is open to the aggrieved party to prefer a statutory appeal if one feels so aggrieved by the final assessment.

Against this backdrop, the question survives, whether Consumer Forum is the appropriate place to ventilate such grievance. 

We afraid, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of U.P. Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed (Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012) has made it crystal clear that, “....complaint against the assessment under section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum..... Offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”.

In the light of such restriction being imposed upon Consumer Fora by the highest Court of the land, we feel that this Forum should not entertain this complaint at all. The Complainant, however, is at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court and he may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum.

The complaint stands dismissed, accordingly.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/86/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP.  Parties do bear their respective costs.