ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

            This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 04.02.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 59 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant-Sh. Kapil Kumar Mehta had a rented shop at Sharda Complex, Aryanagar, Jwalapur, Haridwar.  The complainant had left the said shop and had deposited a bill of Rs. 22,748/- on 19.09.2012 to the Electricity Department, which was assessed by the opposite party (U.P.C.L.) in July, 2012 during inspection. The complainant has compounded the bill dated 08.08.2012, despite this the complainant got a recovery notice for a sum of Rs. 1,64,465/- from the opposite party, which was in the name of Sh. S.C. Bhati, to whom the complainant does not know. The complainant has no dues of the opposite party, but the opposite party sent him a recovery notice of Rs. 1,64,465/-.  The opposite party had threatened the complainant to recover the said amount by auctioning his property, in case of non-compliance of the said recovery notice.  This act of the opposite party shows carelessness and deficiency in service, due to this the complainant suffered physical and mental agony.  Therefore, due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

3.       The opposite party has filed written statement and pleaded that the electricity connection was being used for commercial purpose, so the consumer complaint is not maintainable in the District Forum.  The opposite party further submitted that the bill of Rs. 1,64,465/-, including Rs. 50/- of notice charges, was genuine and the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on March 2012 due to non-payment of the said amount. The complainant had deposited a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of opposite party on 28.06.2011 of Nainital Bank Ltd., which was returned back to the opposite party with the remark of “Stop Payment”, which proves that the complainant was using the said electricity connection, while in the consumer complaint the complainant submitted that he does not know Sh. S.C. Bhati.  During inspection on 27.07.2012, it was found that the complainant was using the electricity illegally.  After final assessment the opposite party demanded Rs. 22,748/- against the electricity revenue loss under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rs. 1,64,415/- as electricity bill, a sum of total      Rs. 1,87,163/- was imposed on complainant, but the complainant deposited only Rs. 22,748/- vide receipt  No. 4/91743 dated 19.07.12 against the Revenue Loss and also deposited Rs. 10,000/- towards compounding fees in the office of District Magistrate, Haridwar under Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and finally the case has been decided in his favour.  But the balance amount of electricity bill is still pending for which the complainant is responsible.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

4.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, has dismissed the consumer complaint vide order dated 04.02.2014 in the above terms.  Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.    

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has submitted in the appeal that the District Forum has failed to appreciate that the appellant does not know the person named Sh. S.C. Bhati, against whom a recovery was imposed, but the respondent-U.P.C.L. wants to recover the same from the appellant.  According to the appellant, it is true that the appellant had taken a shop on rent at Sharda Complex for his livelihood.  When the renovation of the said shop was going on, the respondent inspected the said shop and blamed the appellant for using electricity by theft (unauthorized) and lodged an FIR No. 276/2012 against the appellant (paper No. 33). In order to avoid the case, the appellant had deposited the revenue of Rs. 22,748/- and            Rs. 10,000/- towards compounding fees in the office of District Magistrate, Haridwar, but the respondent wants to take the bill of Sh. S.C. Bhati, whose electricity connection No. was 082368 book No. 0522, from the appellant (Paper Nos. 25 and 26).  The respondent had sent a notice dated 08.08.2012 to the appellant, which was replied by the appellant on 09.08.2012. After receiving the reply of the said notice, the respondent directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,748/- against the unauthorized use of electricity.  The appellant has deposited the said amount, but the respondent sent a recovery notice to the appellant, which was the balance amount of electricity connection of Sh. S.C. Bhati. 

7.       On the other side, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted before this Commission that the District Forum has failed to appreciate on two points.  Firstly on checking, it was found that the appellant was indulging and committing theft of electricity for renovation of his shop.  The inspection and assessment report (paper No. 35) indicates that the appellant was using electricity by obtaining illegal direct connection by-passing the electricity meter.  Act of the appellant comes under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  Secondly, the electricity meter was in the name of Sh. S.C. Bhati not in the name of appellant-Sh. Kapil Kumar Mehta. The appellant-Sh. Kapil Kumar Mehta is not a ‘consumer’ of the Electricity Department, therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant-complainant is not maintainable before this Commission.

8.       The main dispute in this case is whether the appellant is the owner of the disputed electricity connection or not?  After perusal of the record submitted by both the parties, it is evident that the disputed electricity connection was in the name of Sh. S.C. Bhati, not in the name of appellant-Sh. Kapil Kumar Mehta.  So the appellant is not a ‘consumer’ of the Electricity Department, therefore, the appellant could not be treated as ‘consumer’ as per the provision of Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The appellant has not denied the factum of checking.  On checking, it was found that the appellant was indulging and committing theft of electricity for renovation of his shop.  Thus, the matter prima facie relates to theft and assessment of electricity. 

9.       In the case of Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012; U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anis Ahmad; III (2013) CPJ I (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The consumer complaints challenging electricity bills pertain to the unauthorized use and also assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not maintainable. Therefore, acts or person in indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” and, therefore, the “complaint” against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”.  In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anis Ahmad (supra), this consumer complaint challenging the electricity bill pertain to the unauthorized use, therefore, the District Forum has no power and jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

10.     The District Forum has properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order and has rightly dismissed the consumer complaint.  The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 

11.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order dated 04.02.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 59 of 2013 is hereby confirmed.  No order as to costs.

(MRS. VEENA SHARMA)                                 (D.K. TYAGI)                       (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)