KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 264/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 27.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 653/2007 of DCDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
K.S.E.B. represented by Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair and Adv. K. Radhakrishnan)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Zacharia M.K., Mutuvanchira House, Pattikad P.O., Thrissur-679 325.
(By Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)
- A.V. Jose, Sub Engineer, KSEB, Pattikad, Thrissur-679 325.
- Ramaprakash K.V., Assistant Engineer, APTS, KSEB, Palakkad-678 014.
(By Adv. K. Bhuvanachandran for R2 and R3)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the 3rd opposite party in C.C. No. 653/2007 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short “the District Commission”). The 1st respondent is the complainant before the District Commission.
2. The complainant contended that the complainant is a consumer of domestic electric connection having consumer No. 8187. He used to pay electricity bills regularly. On 11.06.2007, the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties dismantled the electric meter of the complainant. Thereafter, they prepared a site mahazar alleging theft. The opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 45,934/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Four only) to the complainant. The complainant paid the said amount on protest. The allegation of the opposite parties, that the complainant committed theft, is incorrect. Since a bill for Rs. 45,934/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Four only) was issued to the complainant, the complainant alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties filed version contending that on 11.06.2007 at about 10.30 am, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the regional unit of KSEB, Palakkad conducted a surprise inspection in the premises of the complainant. Then it was noticed that the meter was manipulated by the complainant for committing theft. In the inspection, it was found that the meter was tampered with. A detailed site mahazar was prepared and a copy was given to the complainant. On the basis of the inspection, the opposite parties issued a penal bill for Rs. 45,934/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Four only) to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides. Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked for the complainant and Exhibits R1 to R3 were marked for the opposite parties. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission set aside Exhibit P2 bill and directed the bill amount to be adjusted in the future bills.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. It is admitted that the Anti Power Theft Squad of the regional unit of KSEB, Palakkad, conducted a surprise inspection in the premises of the complainant on 11.06.2007. The opposite parties would contend that on inspection, it was found that the meter was manipulated and tampered with. A mahazar was also prepared on the spot. The complainant also signed the mahazar. The complainant would contend that the meter was not tampered with and that there was no theft of electricity.
7. The District Commission found that since there was no case registered under Sec. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the “Act”), there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, particularly when there was no other material to show theft of electricity. Exhibit P1 is the mahazar prepared by the Sub Engineer on 11.06.2007. The complainant received the copy of the mahazar. It appears from Exhibit P1 that the meter was manipulated. Exhibit P2 is the penal bill for Rs. 45,934/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Four only). Exhibit P3 would show that the bill amount covered by Exhibit P2 was permitted to be paid in three equal monthly installments. Exhibit R1 and Exhibit P2 are one and the same. Exhibit R2 is the letter issued by the Assistant Engineer, which would show that theft was committed by the complainant. He would recommend to replace the meter with a static meter. It is also stated in Exhibit R2 that the legal action is to be initiated if necessary. Exhibit R2 is dated 11.06.2007. Exhibit R3 and Exhibit P3 are one and the same.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that since no police case was registered as provided under Sec. 135 (1) (A) of the Act, it cannot be said that there was theft of electricity. It is true that Sec. 135 (1) (A) of the Act provides that a case shall be registered on the basis of theft of electricity. However, merely because case was not registered for the theft, even after giving intimation by the inspection team, it cannot be said that there was no theft of electricity, particularly when the assessment was made by the assessing officer under Section 126 of the Act and a penal bill for Rs. 45,934/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Four only) was issued to the complainant. Therefore, the argument in this regard cannot be sustained.
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Anis Ahmad reported in 2013 KHC 4477: AIR 2013 SC 2766 held that a “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 of the Act, or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Act, is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Anis Ahmad (supra) that the acts of person in indulging in ‘unauthorised use of electricity’, do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” and therefore, the “complaint” against assessment under Section 126 of the Act, is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Apex Court also held that a complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
11. In view of the above settled position, the “complaint” against assessment under Section 126 of the Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The theft of electricity also would not come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
12. It can be seen from Exhibit P1 mahazar prepared by the Sub Engineer on the spot that there was theft of electricity by tampering with the meter. Since the theft of electricity was detected in the inspection, Exhibit P2 penal bill was issued to the complainant after the assessment under Section 126 of the Act. This being the fact, the complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, it can be clearly said that the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained and consequently we set aside the same.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 653/2007 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
