Nilima Debata - Complainant(s)


1- M/s WESCO UTILITY - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. R.N. Debata and other Advocates

31 May 2018


District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sambalpur
Near, SBI Main Branch, Sambalpur
Complaint Case No. CC/7/2018
( Date of Filing : 25 Jan 2018 )
1. Nilima Debata
At- Panch Gachhia, Po- Baraipali, Ainthapali, 768006
AT/PO- Burla, 768017
2. 2- The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Electrical Sub-Division-I, At- ainthapali, Sambalpur, 768006
3. 3- Sri. Jasmeet Singh Chhabra
At- Office of Electrical Su-Division-I, AT- Ainthapali, Sambalpur, 768006
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 31 May 2018
Final Order / Judgement





C.C. No.7 of 2018


        Nilima Debata,

Daughter of Shri Achutya Nanda Tripathy,

Aged about 53 years,

Resident of Panch Gachhia, P.O.- Baraipali, Ainthapali

Dist-Sambalpur                                                              ……………… Petitioner




  1. M/s. Western Orissa Electrical Supply Company of Orissa Ltd.


Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.


  1. Sub Divisional Officer,  Electrical Sub-Divn.-1,


Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.

3.     Shri Jasmeet Singh Chhabra,

        Aged about 40 yrs,

        At- O/o Electrical Sub-Divn.-I, Ainthapali,

        Dist.- Sambalpur                                                             .………….. Opp. Parties


       For Complainant             :            Shri R.N. Debata, Shri P.Panigrahi & their Associates         

       For O.P.s No.1 & 2          :           Shri Sudhir  Kumar Dora and associates



                             SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER

                             SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER



Date of Order:


Shri A.P. Mund, President

            The  complainant is a Consumer of O.P. No. 1 bearing No. 4117 3312 0122 since 1997.

That on 16.12.2017 at about 12.00 noon  while the complainant  was alone, the O.P. No. 2 along with some other male persons came to the residence of the complainant at Panch Gachhia and told the complainant that they have come from  electric department to draw the monthly electric bill. Thus the complainant permitted them to see the electric meter fitted in the stair case of her  house as usual. On seeing the functional mechanical meter, the O.P. No. 3  told that the meter fitted in the house is a  mechanical meter and it requires substitution by an electric meter as per rule of the company free of costs.

That on 20.12.2017 surprisingly the complainant received letter No. 1253 dt. 16.12.17 issued by  O.P. No. 3 under which the complainant was called upon to file objection within 7 days of receipt of notice and also she is entitled to appear before O.P. No. 3 on or before 23.12.2017 for personal hearing.

According to complainant the electrical installation of the premises of the complainant was never inspected by the  O.Ps  and on 16.12.17  only the meter was substituted. It is false to say that the electrical  installation of the complainant was inspected on 16.12.2017. The allegations of bypassing   of energy meter against the complainant are absolutely false and fabricated for some ulterior reason.

On 23.12.2017  the complainant by Regd. Post requested for certain information pertaining to the letter dt. 16.12.2017 to the PIO of the O.P. No. 2 so as to enable her to file objection.

On 28.12.2017  the complainant received letter No. 1279 dt. 26.12.2017 from the O.P. No. 3. On 29.12.2017 the complainant by speed post submitted another application, requesting the O.P. No. 3 to provide the information sought for, if available at his end, so as to enable the complainant  to file objection as called upon.

That  on 23.12.2017  on behalf of  the complainant, learned Shri B.D Sahu, Advocate appeared before the O.P. No. 3 in his office at about 4.00 P.M and  prayed for time. There the O.P. No. 3 suggested  the learned counsel to cause deposit of the provisionally assessed amount and in reply the learned counsel  only prayed time referring to Annex. 3 & 7. The O.P. No. 2 informed that the proceeding  of the day will be communicated to complainant.

That on 12.01.2018  the complainant received order dt. 09.01.2018, under which  the provisional assessment of Rs. 69,357/-  was finalized by O.P. No.  3 directing payment within 30 days or in the alternative to prefer  appeal by depositing 50% of the said amount.

Thereafter the O.P. No. 1 communicated a provisional  bill dt. 10.01.2018 as at Annex.- 15 in respect of period during which electric meter has been  fitted making false calculation of 7.00 K.W load.

The complainant has never been communicated with the inventory report referred in Annex.2. The further seen & substance of the case is that the complainant’s  husband  is an Advocate and he has  caused financial loss to the O.P’s & the  O.P’s  being vindictive  has filed this case with false allegation and alleged assessment order has been  passed and finalized.

Therefore, on the basis of the above prays for 


  1. The complainant prays that the order  dt. 16.12.2017  as at Annex-2 and dt. 09.01.2018 as at Annex.14 issued by O.P. No. 3 may kindly be declared as  illegal, without jurisdiction  and void abinitio.
  2. The O.P.  No. 1 may kindly be directed to refit the functional  mechanical meter in the premises of the complainant and take back the electric meter fitted by them on 16.12.2017 .
  3. The O.Ps may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs. Four   Lakhs (Rs. 4,00,000/-) to the complainant for the harassments and metal agony caused to her by the O.P. No. 3.
  4. The costs of the present case, and
  5. Any other fit and equitable reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum thinks fit and proper.

Lists of Documents

Annex.-1           Electric Bill of WESCO utility dt. 16.11.2017

Annex.-2           Letter dt. 20.12.2017 issued by O.P. No. 3 to Nilima Debata

Annex.-3           RTI application dt. 23.12.2017 to the PIO of O.P. 2

Annex.-4           Net tracking report showing receipt Annex.3 by O.P.2 on 26.12.17.

Annex.-5           Letter dt.22.12.2017submitted to O.P.3.

Annex.-6           Net tracking report showing receipt Annex.5 on 26.12.17.

Annex.-7           Letter No. 1279 dt. 26.12.2017 of O.P. No.2. to Nilima Debata.

Annex.-8           Letter dt.29.12.2017of complainant submitted to O.P.2

Annex.-9           Net tracking report showing receipt Annex.8 on 02.01.18.

Annex.-10         RTI application dt. 29.12.2017 to  the PIO, by the complainant.

Annex.-11         RTI rejection letter dt. 30.12.17  issued by O.P.1

Annex.-12         RTI application dt. 03.01.18 to the PIO, by the complainant.

Annex.-13         letter dt. 08.01.2018  issued by the O.P. 2

Annex.-14         letter dt. 09.01.18 issued by the O.P. 2.

Annex.-15         Provisional bill dt. 10.01.2018 issued by O.P.1


Files a petition under section 13 (3) (B) which was granted.

Preliminary objection  filed by O.Ps on the ground of maintainability of the complaint

That, the facts stated in the complaint petition filed by the complainant is neither based on the law nor based on facts and liable to be dismissed as per the highest law of land (SC), being the matter is coming under  the domain of     u/s. 126 Electricity Act 2003 in deciding the ratio U,P Power Corporation Ltd. Vrs Annis Ahmed.

The instant written statement is filed by the O.P. No. 2 & 3 (both are same and one) the S.D.O (Electrical), WESCO utility, Electrical Sub-Division-I, Sambalpur for self as well as for the O.P. No. 1.,

The instant petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law due to want of jurisdiction, as per the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P.  Power Corporation Ltd. Vrs Anis Ahmed and batch cases, AIR 2013 (SC)2766 Para-47 (ii) of the said judgment is quoted here-in-below;

“47 (ii) A complaint against the assessment made by assessing officer u/s. 126  or against the offences committed u/s. 135  to 140  of the Electricity Act, 2003  is not maintainable  before a Consumer Forum.”

The aforesaid judgment bars the jurisdiction of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums, constituted under the consumer Protection Act, 1986, to entertain and adjudicate complaints against assessment proceeding initiated by the Electricity Distribution Licensee u/.s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thus the jurisdiction of the assessing officer and manner of proceeding cannot be questioned before this Hon’ble Forum, by virtue of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In spite of the above crystal clear direction of Hon’ble Apex Court, the present complaint petition has been entertained by this Hon’ble Forum. Further an interim order has also been passed by this Hon’ble Forum on 25.01.2018  directing the  answering O.Ps not to take any coercive action against the complainant. Said direction of Hon’ble Forum is against the judicial principle decided by the highest Court of the land.

 Brief fact pertaining to the assessment proceeding   is that, upon inspection to the  premises of the complainant by the O.Ps on 16.12.2017, it was  found that the meter installed has been  interfered resulting  into tampering of the same and bypassing of energy. For the said unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant, proceeding of assessment was initiated by the O.P. No. 2, being the assessing officer, u/s. 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and provisional order of   Assessment was  issued on 16.12.2017 for an amount of Rs. 69,357/- which  was subsequently finalized vide final order of Assessment on 09.01.2018. The entire proceeding of assessment has been kept out of the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986, for which the instant complaint petition is liable to be set aside at the threshold. The complainant, if  aggrieved with the said proceeding of assessment, may file appeal before the Appellate Authority u/s 127 of the electricity Act 2003 or u/s 42(5) of Electricity Act 2003 before the G.R.F. and against the decision of learned Forum an appeal can be filed before the  Electricity Ombudsman u/s. 42(7) of the electricity act 2003. So there are three different forums available to the consumer for ventilating their grievances. So the Consumer Forum constituted under the provision of C.P. Act 1986 has no jurisdiction to entertain such application.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is humbly submitted that, the instant complaint petition, not being maintainable in the eye of law, is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

List of documents filed by the O.P’s are;

  1. True copy of  Provisional Assessment order  (2 sheets) 16.12.2017
  2. True copy of PVR                                                      16.12.2017
  3. True copy of final assessment order                           09.01.2018

Heard both parties. Perused the case record, documents & written argument filed by both the parties.

The case of the complainant & argument on behalf of complainant is that : It appears that, the O.P. no. 3  on Annex.2 & 14 signed the same styling himself as the SDO (Elect.I)-cum-Assessing Officer. The Xerox copy  of alleged PVR report dt. 16.12.2017  filed by O.P. No. 3 on 4.5.18  in this case indicates the SDO is the alleged inspecting officer. Thus a  conjoint reading of Annex.2 14 and alleged PVR report dt. 16.12.17  suggests that,  the O.P. No. 3 himself was the alleger  and judge of his own cause. This conducts of O.P. No. 3 violates the fundamental principles of law that, “a person  cannot be the judge of his own cause”. The O.P. No. 3 not provided any explanation as to why he adjudicated his own cause against the cannons of commence sense and  natural justice. There is no explanation as to  why the O.P. No. 3 preferred to adjudicate his own cause against the cannons of common sense and natural justice. There is  no explanation as to why the  O.P. No. 3 preferred to adjudicate his own  cause,  instead of referring it to some  other  competent assessing  officer. It is thus submitted on this short technical  ground the order as at annex. 2 & 14 are liable  to be  quashed.

The legislature vide Act No. 26 of 2007 inserted the word “shall” in place of “may” in sec. 126  w.e.f 15.06.2007  making it mandatory on the part of assessing officer to provide adequate  opportunity to file objection and hearing to the consumer concerned. Thus incidental question falls for consideration in this case, whether the complainant was afforded with any reasonable opportunity to file her objection on the assessment order and any hearing before passing Annex. 14  by the O.P. No. 3 ?

In the present case, no document is filed to show that, the O.P. No. 2/3 was ever appointed as the “assessing officer” by  the State Government and there is clear violation of sub-section (3)  of sec. 126 . In the said premises the  O.P.  No. 2/3 was in error to say that, the Annex.14 is an order legally passed u/s. 126 (5) of the Act. Annex. 14 is void abinitio and as such cannot be termed as an order u/s. 126 (5) of the Electricity Act, barring jurisdiction of this forum.

Thus mentioning of Sec. 126  in Annex.2 &14 is clear transgasstion of limits of jurisdiction by the O.P. No. 2/3, as these  acts  not within the Electricity  Act.

The AIR 2013 SC 2733, in case of “unauthorized use of electricity by a consumer” the jurisdiction Consumer Forums have been barred. That as on date this appears to be the correct preposition of law. But in the case in hand, the complainant by swearing  affidavits in this case asserted that, she was not indulged  in unauthorized  use of electricity as alleged by the OP No. 3 The affidavits filed gone uncontroverted. From the materials on records germinates that the O.P. No.  3 had  no authority u/s. 126 and he did not act in good faith as stipulated in the Act. The case in hand  is not  covered by sec. 126. That  apart, in the case before the Hon’ble SC the cases in respect of industrial establishments were in consideration , but not of any individual  consumer. Nonetheless, in para – 47(i) of the judgement confirmed the jurisdiction of Consumers Court in the matter. In the said premises the ratio decidendi  laid down in the above case has no application to the present case and distinguishable  both on facts and law.

The Learned Advocate  also cited the  following cases.

In AIR 2007 P&H 57- Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Ors Vs M/s. Guru Nanak Agriculture Engineering Works & Ors:

In AIR -1974-SC-1069 & AIR-1975 ORISSA-219

In AIR -1071-MP-254& 1964 (30)CLT-509-(516)

In AIR -1948 PC33, it has been held that

“Authority exercising powers in excess of power conferred-Civil Court can question its proceedings”.

The jurisdiction of this forum is in addition to the forums prescribed under common law. In the premises it is submitted the subject matter of the present case does not fall within the ambit and scope of sec. 126 & 127 of Electricity Act attracting jurisdiction of this  Hon’ble forum on the matter in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court.

In addition to the above in the present case, multiple prayers have been made attracting  jurisdiction of this Hon’ble forum. The prayers made in the case are interlinked with each other and cannot be segregated. The position of law is well settled that , if there are multiple prayers and not separable ,  the jurisdiction of the court on all prayers are inherent and conclusive. The O.P. No. 2/3 has not  challenged that, the jurisdiction of this forum is barred in respect of prayers made from para (b) to (e) . The  entire chain of actions begins  on 16.12.17 when the mechanical meter was replaced by giving false assurance. It is thus submitted, having regards to the fact and circumstances of the case, the jurisdiction of the forum to grant the reliefs prayed  for by the complainant is conclusive.

That apart, Annex.- 2 provisional assessment order (page-2- col14) reveals that, the assessment has been made basing on the “inventory Report” of SDO & ESo (Elect.) No. 1. The copy of the said inventory report has not yet been communicated to the complainant till date, in spite of  her prayers made vide Annex,3 dt. 22.12.17  & Annex.5 dt. 22.12.17, Annex.8-dt. 29.12.17, Annex.10 dt. 29.12.17 & Annex.12 dt. 3.1.18. There is no explanation of whatsoever nature extended by the Ops for non-furnishing of copy of said inventory report to the complainant. That a perusal of provisional assessment  report as at Annex.2 reveals  that, the said inventory report is  the basis of passing the order and as such an essential document for the complainant  to file objection. When the  complainant in this case filed  petition dt. 8.5.18 calling for  some documents  from the custody of the Ops for production in the court, the OP No. 3 objected to the motion  on the ground of maintainability  of the case and did not dispute the relevancy of the documents  in the case.

That as regards allegations of bypassing of energy, the complainant denied the allegations. The Ops failed to prove the same in this Forum. It appears from Annex.1 electric bill dt. 16.12.17 that,  the photograph of the meter reading had been given  indicating the reading displayed by meter. But the O.P No. 3 has not produced  any photograph of the alleged bypassing spot of the electric  line in this court. The OP No. 3 has not referred to any such photograph  in Annex.2 & 14.The OP no. 3 has not explained the reason as to why such photographs  is not produced in this court. If for billing  purpose  photographs of the meter was taken, then no reason  as to why for making  wild allegation  of bypassing against a consumer; such step was not taken. This falsifies the allegations  of inspection of the premises on 16.12.17  as well as allegation of bypassing  of energy.

The demand of meter rent of Rs. 150/- PM by changing the functional meter is misrepresentation to consumers. The complainant was not even informed  that, rent is payable on the meter. That such acts amounts to unfair trade practices.

That aforesaid acts of Ops constitutes unfair trade practices, exploitation and harassments to complainant-consumer. In the premises the complainant is entitled to damages and other prayers as prayed for with costs.

Cited further cases;

AIR-2003 SC-2041-Canara Bank & Ors. Vrs Shri Debasis Das & Ors.

2001 (1) OLR-432- Arjuna Chandra Mishra Vrs SBI and Ors.

Natural Justice –Principle of –No man can be the judge of his own cause-such principle also applies to the exercise of quasi judicial  as well as administrative powers.

WORDS AND PHRASES- Nemo debet  asse judix in propria causa sua-Maxim of law-Doctrine of Bias-No one can be judge in his own cause.

In the present case, the OP No. 3 is the alleger and the judge both. The proceeding u/s. 126 of the Electricity act is an administrative/quasi-judicial proceeding. Thus in view of the ratio decidendi laid down in the above decisions, the impugned orders as at  Annex.2 & 14 are de novo void and illegal.

Reply of Opposite Parties for issues made by complainant in their argument

Issue  at DCDRF as per submission made by the complainant

  1. No power has been vested in OP2 and OP 3 regarding the assessment proceedings.
  2. No chance for objection  was given because the OP’s/OP did not reply rather reject the RTI and others.
  3. Letter  of inventory report/inspection report has not yet been supplied.
  4. No hearing opportunity has been given to the complainant as per the provision of u/s. 126 of electricity act 2003 however the  OP did not follow the provision of 126  I.E act 2003.
  5. The  complainant on oath declared that the PVR has not been declared supplied the signature over the PVR report is forged one.
  6. The same  person can’t be an inspection officer  and a  judge (assessing Officer) in 126 (3) IE Act 2003.
  7. No photograph of By-pass has been given/submitted before the Learned Forum.

Reply of Opposite Parties as asked by the Forum.

The issue raised by the complainant involves the merit of the proceeding under sec. 126  of the Electricity  Act, 2003. It is relevant to submit that, the O.Ps have raised the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of the Learned Forum to entertain the complaint which involves matter relating assessment under sec. 126  of the Electricity Act, 2003. If the  complainant is aggrieved with the manner of assessment, than the complainant is required to approach  the appellate authority under Sec. 127  of the Electricity Act, 2003,  by depositing 50% of the assessment amount as per the  mandate of the statute. In order to avoid said payment of statutory dues, the complainant has approached this Learned Forum which is not  at all  maintainable in  the eye of law in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Anis Ahmed Case.

That brief fact pertaining to the assessment proceeding is that, upon inspection to the premises of the complainant by the O.Ps on 16.12.2017,  it was found that the meter installed has been interfered resulting into tampering of the same and by passing of energy as the service line of the consumer  complaint was totally concealed from pole to her residential premises and in fact when the service line of the complainant to the  energy meter was cut-off by the OPs still there exists active line in the premises which directly indicates a by-pass  of electric line has been done  internally concealing the materials, however, on being verified the initial end to the meter was found to have a copper wire connection instead of aluminum,  which is the service connection to the meter. So on the same day i.e. 16.12.2017 and on spot of the  premise of the consumer one PVR was prepared by  the Ops with the reason and took the signature of the son of the complainant  along  with his name there on with mobile  number (if any) and handed over one copy to him as per law.

On inspection found by-pass of energy service wire  before to the point of meter in concealed way in the premises of consumer complainant. This is nothing but unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant and proceeding of assessment was initiated by the O.P. No.2, being the assessing officer, under section 126  of the Electricity Act, 2003 and provisional  order of Assessment was issued on 16.12.2017 for an amount of Rs. 69,357/-, which was subsequently finalized vide final order of assessment on 09.01.2018. The entire proceeding of assessment has been kept out of the purview of the consumer Protection  Act, 1986, for which the instant complaint petition is liable to be set aside at the threshold. The complainant, if aggrieved with  the said proceeding of assessment may file appeal before the Appellate Authority under Sec. 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or u/s. 42 (5)  of Electricity Act, 2003  before the G.R.F and against the decision of learned forum an appeal  can be filed before the Electricity  Ombudsman u/s. 42(7) of the   Electricity Act, 2003. So  there are three different forums available to the consumer for ventilating her grievances . So the Consumer Forum constituted under the provision of C.P. Act 1986  has no jurisdiction to entertain such application.

The complainant has never approached before the Appellate authority u/s. 127 I.E. Act 2003  rather approached this Learned  Forum  for her grievances and  however disputing the assessment proceedings by by-passing  the statutes. The legality of the forum deciding the matter  u/s. 126 I.E. Act 2003  has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate as per the ratio decided by the highest court of land (SC) in the matter of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.  Vrs Anis Ahmed and batch cases, AIR 2013 (SC) 2766. Para – 47 (ii) and also in vol. 8 SCC (2013) Page 491 of the said judgement  is quoted  here-in-below.

“47 (ii)AIR/60.2(SCC) A complaint against the assessment made by assessing officer under section 126  or against the offences committed under sections 135 to 140  of the Electricity Act, 2003  is not maintainable  before  a Consumer Forum.


So far the issue No. 2  and 3  is concerned. Any   dispute shall before the assessing officer u/s. 127  I.E. act  not before the Learned Consumer Fora as per the  guide line of the I.E act 2003  and highest law of land.

The O.P. 2 /Assessing Officer has given sufficient time to the complainant for her objection like on or before 23.12.17 between 11 am  to 5 pm,  so allegation against the Ops is  baseless and he has acted  as per the provision of law enumerated in I.E. act 2003. So far the authenticity of PVR  is concerned I.E act 2003 does not specify the manner it has been supplied because  it has been supplied on the spot to the consumer and it has been  supplied and description has already been given on aforesaid para/paras. For issue no. 6 the Electricity Act 2003 has no where mention in this act that, the inspection officer cannot be the assessing officer the  dispute  regarding this lies on the consumer to where the law  has been codified that   the inspection officer can’t  be the assessing officer. As the inspection officer/vigilance personnel visited  the premises of the complainant and found by pass  and step  against  the consumer   complainant  taken as per the provision  of law and mentioned/narrated  in the aforesaid  para(s) so it does not  require any photograph and the I.E. Act 2003 nowhere mention to take  photograph for evidence.

As per the provision of law enumerated in I.E. Act 2003,  the law u/s. 126  I.E. Act has properly been communicated to the complainant, so the entire proceeding of assessment has been kept out of the purview of the consumer Protection Act, 1986, for which the instant complaint petition  is liable to be set aside/dismissed  at the threshold.


Heard arguments, perused both the W.A & pleadings.   Only one issue is framed by us in view of  the pleadings and arguments as raised from both the sides.

As to whether the pleading of the complainant dragging the matter, so as not to come under the provisions of Sec. 126  of Electricity Act, 2003 is justified or not.

And  if not whether this forum has any authority to entertain such a matter as per the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 5466  of 2012.

The Learned Advocate for complainant stressed upon the shortcoming  of the assessing officer i.e. O.P. No. 2 in exercising power u/s. 126  of the Electricity Act. He went  in length to describe the O.P. No. 2 as not vested with power by the State Govt.  Besides the O.P. No. 2 did not follow  proper procedure enumerated  in sec 126  and hence the assessment is void as not done by a properly authorized person. Beside the O.P. No. 2 is  the complainant as well as the Judge in this case. Hence violates the principle  of natural justice as per decisions cited. The Learned Advocate for  O.P.  clarified on the matter raised and submitted a Xerox copy of the delegation of power on O.P. No. 2. He also  raised the point that the Electricity Act 2003 is a special Act and proper procedure has been defined  if  one consumer  is aggrieved the  assessment of the assessing officer.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A. 5466  of 2012  has categorically held in para 30 (6) “……….. therefore, it is clear that offer notice  of provisional assessment to the person indulged in unathorised  use of electricity, the final decision by an assessing officer, who is a public  servant, on the  assessment of unauthorized use of electricity is a Quasi Judicial decision & does not fall within the meaning  of consumer  dispute  u/s. 2 (1) of the C.P. Act, 1986”.


In para 46(ii) the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on further and held “ A complaint against the assessment made by assessing  officer u/s. 126  or against the offences committed u/s. 135 to 140  of the Electricity Act,2003 is not  maintainable before a consumer forum”.

Basing on the above observation we feel that this forum has no jurisdiction & this case is not  maintainable before this forum. We are not inclined to pass judgement on other matter raised by the Learned Advocate in view of above.

Hence the complaint case is  dismissed. No order as to cost.



                  Sd/-                                                                                        .            Sd/-

SHRI A.P.MUND, I agree                                                                     SMT S.TRIPATHY

   PRESIDENT                                                                                           Member                



.                 Sd/-                                                                                               Sd/-   

 SHRI K.D.DASH.  Member  I agree.                                             Dictated and corrected by me.



















[HON'BLE MRS. S.Tripathi]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.