Sri Kamal De, President
In short, case of the Complainant, is that he is a consumer within the meaning of ‘consumer’ of the Consumer Protection Act of WBSEDCL having Consumer ID 200755842. On 10-06-2015, the Complainant was asked by a few officials of the OPs to meet them in their local office. When brother of the Complainant went to the office on 10-06-2015, the concerned officials handed over a demand notice claiming a sum of Rs. 3,94,825/- alleging unauthorized use of electricity from the supply of the OPs. On 18-06-2015, the Complainant was asked by a few officials of the OPs to meet them at their local office. When the Complainant went there, said officials demanded illegal money to settle the matter, but the Complainant refused to do so. Then the officials of the OP compelled him to make a declaration that the Complainant wanted reconsideration of the said provisional bill. The Complainant, having understood that the OPs practiced fraud upon him, he made a diary before the local police station by registered post with AD on 24-06-2015. It is alleged that the Complainant is suffering from mental stress and agony due to illegal act of the OPs. Hence, this case.
It is the case of the OP No. 1 that the Complainant is a commercial consumer for fishery purpose. On 10-06-2015, during an inspection it was found that the Complainant was illegally using electricity by way of hooking in his commercial premises. So, the OP No. 1, being the Assessing Officer raised the provisional Assessment bill for an amount of Rs. 3,94,825/- and served it upon the Complainant. A hearing was organized on 19-06-2015 at the chamber of the OP No. 1 to pass final assessment order in presence of the Complainant. The Complainant stated that he has committed illegal work of theft of electricity and he appealed before the authority to consider the pilferage bill sympathetically. As per declaration of the Complainant, during the course of hearing, the OP No. 1 considered the working hours at 10 hours instead of 24 hours and final assessment was made at Rs. 1,62,042/-. But the Complainant has not made payment of the final assessment bill. It is further stated that Marishda Police Station has started Case No. 112/2015 dated 10-06-2015 and seizure list has been prepared and sent the same for taking proper steps before the Ld. Court and the same is pending for adjudication.
Points for consideration
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer in respect of his fishery business?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1&2:
The Complainant in paragraph 2 of his petition of complaint has stated that he is a consumer under the WBSEDCL having Consumer ID 200755842. It has not been stated clearly whether this consumer ID relates to his fishery business or not. It appears from the materials on record that officials of the OP No. 1 handed over a Demand Notice claiming a sum of Rs. 3,94,825/- alleging unauthorized use of electricity by way of hooking from the overhead line in respect of his fishery. Complainant has alleged that officials of the OP No. 1 ventured to extort money from the Complainant for financial gain.
We have glossed over the documents on record. There is nothing on record to show that the Complainant has any connection in respect of his fishery. The Complainant, however, has furnished two documents showing consumer ID 200755842. We find that it is for domestic connection and has nothing to do with his fishery business. On the contrary, we find from a document filed from the side of the Complainant before the Station Manager & AE, Marishda CCC, Purba Medinipur mentioning consumer ID 850008231 (annexure no. 5). In the said document, he has stated that he took illegal electric connection in respect of the said consumer ID and as such, the provisional bill was raised for an amount of Rs. 3,94,825/-.
The OP No. 1 has filed a series of documents showing that the Complainant was consuming electricity in his commercial fishery premises. It is only by way of a direct hooking from the nearest LT installation of WBSEDCL. Seen the FIR also alleging power theft against the Complainant and a case was also registered being Marishda PS Case No. 112/2015 dated 10-06-2015 u/s 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with amended Act, 2007 and we find that charge-sheet has also been filed in the said case against the Complainant under the said section and the case is pending. We also find that officials of the WBSEDCL, Marishda seized portion of the hooking wire – two core block coated PVC cable approx.. length 1 ft. each. From the FIR also we find that on 10-06-2015, around 2 p.m., Subhendu Sarkar, AE& Station Manager, Marishda CCC, WBSEDCL along with others, entered the premises of the fishery for routine inspection and found that the Complainant was consuming electricity dishonestly by way of direct hooking from the nearest LT installation of WBSEDCL. So, we find that a case of power theft u/s 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with amended Act, 2007 is pending. There is no document before this Court that the Complainant has been acquitted in the said case. We also see the deliberation of the Complainant confessing that he was hooking electric connection at his fishery and a provisional bill was given to him at an amount of Rs. 3,94,825/-. He has also prayed for lowering the said amount through amicable settlement. So, prima facie, from the documents on record, we find that there is allegation of unauthorized use of electricity by way of direct hooking against the Complainant in his commercial premises and a case is also pending against him alleging theft of electricity from the supply of the OPs. We also find that the Complainant, in his undertaking, has stated that he has committed illegal work of theft of electricity and he appealed before the authority to consider the pilferage bill sympathetically. As per deliberation of the Complainant during the course of hearing, the OP No. 1 considered the working hours, i.e., 10 hours instead of 24 hours ad accordingly, final assessment was made and it came to Rs. 1,62,042/-. We find that the Complainant has suppressed all the material facts. We also find that a case u/s 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act is also initiated against the Complainant for direct hooking from the nearest LT installation of WBSEDCL. The case is pending before the Judge, Special Court, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk.
Perused the decision reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that by virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections 173, 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act,. 2003, Consumer Forum cannot bestow upon itself the power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made u/s 126 or offences u/s 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act as a case of indulging in unauthorized use of electricity does not fall within the meaning of Consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the backdrop of facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that persons availing of services for commercial purposes do not fall within the meaning of ‘consumer’ and cannot be a Complainant for the purpose of filing complaint before the Consumer Forum. We think that complaint against the assessment made u/s 126, or action taken against those committing offences u/s 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the instant C. C. No. 05/2016 be and the same is rejected on contest against the OPs. No order as to costs.
