Hon’ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The sum and substance of the Complainant of the petitioner is that the Complainant, Sri Subhas Roy became the consumer of west Bengal state electricity distribution company Ltd represented by station Manager, Changrabanda CCC, Dist- Cooch Behar (OP) having Consumer Id No: 400505981 under domestic classification by depositing security deposit Rs 588/- and service charge Rs 200/- to the above said O.P. The Complainant used to switch on six electrical bulbs, two fans and one TV set to run those electrical gadgets for his two bed rooms, one kitchen, one latrine and one bath room. For that his monthly consumption of energy was meagre which was given in the complaint petition and amount of charge was paid regularly by him without any delay. At the end of January 2019 at night one truck collided with the electric poll through which LT main line was drawn to his home causing the poll broken down which in turn damaged the service line of the complainant. On the next day, the complainant intimated the incident to the O.P and thereafter O.P took proper step to reconnect the service line. That on 30-05-19 a few officials of the O.P along with a Contractor at about 4-30 pm trespassed on the premises of the complainant and disconnected the service line of the complainant and on being asked by the complainant they became violent and used abusive language and assaulted the complainant physically by hitting his head with an iron rod. Thus, the Complainant sustained severe injury which caused bleeding for which he had been to Kuchlibari P.S for lodging an FIR against the official of the O.P but police refused to take the Complain. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed a written complaint before the SDO Mekhliganj stating the incident in detail and then got admitted in Mekhliganj Govt. Hospital for treatment. On the contrary, the O.P-1 filed a case before Kuchlibaci P.S on 01-06-19 to save themselves from the criminal case vide Kuchlibari P.S Case No. 50/2019 u/s 135 (1)(b) of Electricity Act for theft of electricity. Thereafter the O.P raised a Provisional assessment bill Rs 243318/- in respect of Consumer Id. of the complainant on 01-06-19 for the period from 03-11-17 to 30-05-19 with a tariff rate just the double. The O.P-1 raised such huge bill with bad intention and to harass the complainant with a previous grude of the Incident on 30-05-19. After getting such huge bill the Complainant being shocked and surprised went to office of the O.P but the O.P had driven the Complainant out from his office without any co-operation. Eventually, the Complainant prayed to the SDO, Mekhliganj on 31-05-19 as result of which the O.P fixed a date on 08-07-49 for hearing on final assessment bill. On that day the final bill was reduced to Rs 200588/- but reason for such amount was still unknown to the Complainant.
Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of the O.P but the staff of that office did not pay heed to him rather they misbehaved and harassed him. That on disconnection of the service line of electricity, the Complainant was facing trouble and going through a serious mental pain and agony as his son a college student who had an examination which required a lot of studies for preparation of the same. But due to lack of electricity his son could not study for his examination which became a serious issue for the whole family. Therefore, the O.P by disconnecting the service line of the Complainant with view to harassing him had done this act illegally. As a last resort, the Complainant filed this case before this commission for redressal of his grievances. He prayed before the commission to waive the bill Rs 200588/- and to give direction to the O.P to pay Rs 100000 /- for mental pain and agony and Rs 100000 /- for harassment for non-availability of electrical Connection.
O.P contested the case by filing WV, evidence on affidavit and written argument. The O.P in his defence plea stated that on 30-05-19 Mr. Abhishek Dey, AE & SM, Changrabandha CCC, WBSEDCL (O.P) along with SAE & (E) and Sr. T.S.H of his office visited the industrial premises of the complainant for taking reading as per schedule. After taking reading of the industrial meter of the Complainant (Industrial Meter No- LT518440) he found that one wire (2 core PVC wire black in colour of length 15 meter approx) entered into his Commercial shop which was situated just beside his industrial promises. By seeing that the O.P along with his team entered into the shop in his presence for enquiry of that wire although the complainant had no commercial connection installed by the office of the OP. After entering into the shop, the O.P and his team found that the said wire was directly connected to the main switch installed beside the single phase meter (Domestic) vide meter No: L2330064 which was in the name of Complainant only. After the main switch of that shop another wire (2 core PVC wire black in colour of length 30 meters approx) was directly connected to the main switch of his domestic premises situated just back side of that commercial set up. (Anex-A) In this way the Complainant Mr. Subhas Ray was enjoying electricity unauthorizedly bypassing his single phase meter (L22330061) and used to consume 1.203 Kilo watt equivalent to 1.415 KVA load by using 3 Nos fan, 4 Nos 100 watt bulb, one 0.5 HP motor of Water pump and one refrigerator of 250 watts. When the said theft of electricity was detected by the O.P and his team, the Complainant behaved very violently with the O.P and his team and refrained them to perform their official duties and started using slang languages towards the O.P and his teams. Meanwhile being furious, the Complainant tried to hit the O.P, Mr. Dey by using one piece of bamboo which was used for giving support to the front door (JHAP) of his shop. While the Complainant took the piece of supported bamboo, the front door (JHAP) fell down over his head causing, a head injury. Thereafter, the wife and his son took the complainant away from the shop and locked the shop. By hearing hue and cry local people also assembled there. Thereafter, the O.P and his team removed the hooking device and disconnected the domestic service line from nearby LT line of WBSEDCL at about 16:40 hrs on 30-05-2019 and returned to the office. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged at Kuchlibari P.S vide Kuchlibari P.S. Case No:- 50/19 of 01-06-2019 against the complainant for the offence U/S 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act 2003. (Anex-B of W.V) Thus, the Complainant was involved in hooking of electricity by the aforesaid process for which a theft case of electricity was pending against him and a provisional assessment bill Rs 243318/- was raised against him by the O.P. Later, a meeting was held in the office of the O.P on 08-07-19 in presence of Mr. Abhishek Dey, (O.P) and the Complainant with his two representatives namely Sakti Nath Roy and Pradip Roy. In the said meeting, the complainant confessed to his guilt and apologized for the incident dated 30-05-19 before the OP, Mr. Abhishek Dey and also prayed for his kind Consideration. Accordingly, the O.P recorded the statement of the Complainant and the Complainant also put his signature in the written statement in presence of his two representatives. Thereafter considering the prayer of the Complainant, the O.P, Mr. Abhishek Dey reduced the working hours of a day to 20 hrs instead of 24 hrs in calculation of assessment bill. Thus, the revised assessment bill of Rs 200588/- was prepared on 08-07-19 instead of assessment bill of Rs 243318/- dated 31-05-19 which the O.P signed on 11-07-19. This reduction of bill amount dated 08-07-19 was in accordance with law.
As the theft of electricity was detected by the O.P in the premises of the Complainant, then he would have to face the legal consequences under the provisions of the electricity act. That after institution of Case U/S 135 (1)(b) of the Electricity Act against the Complainant he had no locus standi to file the present case against the O.P as the CP Act has no jurisdiction over the matter relating to the assessment of charges for unauthorised use of electricity, tempering of meters etc. and also over the matters which fall under the domain of special courts Constituted under the Electricity Act 2003 and the section 145 of the said act bars the jurisdiction of civil court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer refers to the section 126 of the said act. The Ld. Advocate of the O.P refered to one case law reported in (2013-CJ-921 S.C) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that after notice of provisional assessment to the person indulged in unauthorised use of electricity. The final decision by an assessing officer, who is a public servant, on assessment of unauthorised use of electricity is a ‘Quasi Judicial’ decision and does not fall within the meaning of 'Consumer dispute under section 2(1) (e) of the CP Act 1986. According to highest court of the land, a complaint against the assessment made by assessing officer u/s 126 or against the office committed u/s 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act 2003 is not maintainable before consumer forum. He also refered two case laws, one of Hon’ble National Commission wherein it was decided that a case of unauthorised use of electricity cannot be challenged before the consumer forum (2021 - CJ-26 NC) 2016 (3) CPR-581 (NC) and another of Hon’ble Supreme Court where in it was decided that disconnection of electricity owing to power theft does not amount to deficiency in service (2022-CJ-318 SC). Under the above facts and circumstances, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P prayed to the commission to dismiss the complaint petition against O.P with cost for unnecessary harassment of the O.P. Perused the pleading, and different documents in the case record of both parties. Heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Advocates of both parties at length. Now the Commission finds it necessary to discuss the following points to reach a decision about the case.
Points for determination
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P which leads to harassment of the complainant
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed in his complaint petition for harassment, mental pain and agony.
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
The Complainant, Mr. Subhas Roy was a consumer of the O.P having consumer ID-400509581 with classification of domestic and he had one industrial connection also. While taking meter reading of the industrial connection, the O.P found hooking wire which entered into his commercial establishment. (Anex-A) The O.P also found few electrical gadgets being operated through hooking wire which amounted to theft of electricity by the Complainant. Therefore, the O.P disconnected the hooking wire as well as his domestic connection. He also lodge an FIR in Kuchlibari P.S having P.S Case No:- 50/19 dated 01-06-19 under section 135(1)(b) of Electricity Act 2003 (Anex-B) and raised a provisional assessment bill amounting to Rs 243315/- dated 31-05-19( copy Annexed) under section 126 of the said act. The Complainant negotiated with the O.P regarding Provisional Assessment Bill and confessed to his guilt, the result of which was the reduction of Final Assessment Bill of Rs 200588/- which he could not afford to pay(copy Annexed). As a last resort, he knocked at the door of this commission to get relief for the same. So, with the filing of this case he prayed for an interim relief by giving direction to the O.P for reconnection of his domestic line which was rejected by the commission. Again he prayed to the Commission for same cause of action for relief but his attempt was in vain.
The Ld. advocate for the O.P submitted an original copy of application for information in high Court form (M)55 and (M)26 which reveal that a criminal case having No:- 144/2019 arising out of Kuchlibari P.S case No. 50/19 in the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Cooch Behar under Electricity Act is pending against the complainant, Mr. Subhas Roy U/S 135(1)(b) of the said act. He also referred two case laws, one of which reported in [2021] CJ 26 (NC), a case of Saroj Kumari Vs Executive Engineer, dakchhinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Niggam Ltd having Revision petition No. 735 of 2020. Electricity - Maintainability of Complaint -Use of domestic electricity Connection for commercial purpose -Consumer Complaint against assessment made U/S 126 of Electricity Act is not maintainable- this is a case of unauthorised use of electricity within meaning of explanation below section 126 of Electricity Act and assessment made there under could not have been challenged before a consumer forum - view taken by state commission upheld - Revision petition dismissed. Mentioning important point - Disconnection of electricity owing to power theft does not amount to deficiency in service. Another case law reported in [2022] CJ 317 (NC). A Revision Petition No:- 1352 of 2015, of a case of Narayan Prasad Kesharwani VS Chhatisgarh State Electricity Distribution, Korbar, where in the Hon'ble National Commission placed reliance on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case of U.P Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Anis Ahmed reported in (2013) 8 sec 491. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case has held as under; a Complaint against the assessment made by assessing officer under section 126 or against the offences committed under section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before a consumer forum. In this revision petition of Mr.Narayan Prasad Kesharwari Vs Chhattisghar State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. the Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the revision petition following the principal laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court wherein there was Power Theft- Disconnection of electricity –since petitioner found illegally consuming electricity and in view of the same, necessary proceeding were initiated U/S 135 to 140 of Electricity Act 2003- order passed by the state commission upheld.
In the subject case, there was also power theft by the Complainant which was detected by the O.P, station manager, WBSEDCL, Changrabanda CCC following which a provisional assessment bill which after negotiation turned into a final assessment bill of lesser amount under section 126 of the Electricity Act. was generated and a criminal case under section 135(1)(b) of the said Act was registered in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Cooch Behar under Electricity Act which is still pending against the Complainant, Mr. Subhas Roy. Therefore, the Complainant is not acquitted of the crime. So, this case relates to the case refered in the case laws filed by the Ld. Advocate of the O.P. Hence, by placing reliance on the above case laws, one of which refered observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court which goes against the Complainant, the commission comes to finding that case is not maintainable which deserves to be dismissed. Moreover, the deficiency in service by the O.P which caused harassment to the Complainant can not be established as because those act of the O.P was performed by maintaining the rules of W.B Electricity Act. Therefore, this point is answered in negative and decided against the Complainant.
Point No.2.
In the aforesaid discussion in point no.-1 it is established that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and case is not maintainable in this commission which deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, there is no question of relief to be paid by the O.P.
So, this point is answered in negative and decided against the Complainant.
In the result, the complaint case fails on contest.
Hence it is,
Ordered
That the instant case no. CC/122/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available on www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
