Gitanjali Mishra - Complainant(s)


1-M/s Westen Elecrtical supply Company Of Odisha Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. R.N. Debata and other Advocates

21 May 2018


District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sambalpur
Near, SBI Main Branch, Sambalpur
Complaint Case No. CC/17/2018
( Date of Filing : 04 Apr 2018 )
1. Gitanjali Mishra
R/O- BhimaBhoi Nagar, danipali, At/Po- sambalpur-768004
1. 1-M/s Westen Elecrtical supply Company Of Odisha Ltd.
At/Po- Burla, Sambalpur-768017
2. 2-Jasmeet Singh Chhabra
At- Office of Elecrtical Sub-Division-I,Ainthapali.
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 21 May 2018
Final Order / Judgement





C.C. No.17 of 2018



      Gitanjali Mishra,

Wife of Shri Mohini Mohan Mishra,

Aged about 48 years,

Resident of Bhimabhoi Nagar, Danipali

At/P.O./Dist-Sambalpur                                               ……………… Petitioner




  1. M/s. Western Electrical Supply Company of Odisha Ltd,

Represented through its Managing Director,

At/P.O. Burla,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.


  1. Jasmeet Singh Chhabra,

At – office of Electrical Sub-Division – I

At- Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha..………….. Opp. Parties


       For Complainant                      :  Shri R.N. Debata & Associates

       For O.P.s No.1 & 2                    :  Sri Sudhir Kumar Dora & Associates



                                SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER

                              SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER



Date of Order: 21.05.2018


Shri A.P. Mund, President

                        The case of the complainant is that she has taken two domestic consumer No. 411722060329 & 411722060241 of 2 K.W. load of each  and according to the complainant there is no outstanding dues of the WESCO utility against her.

                        On dt. 10.03.2018 at about 10.30 A.M. O.P. No. 2 along with some other persons came to the residence of the complainant.  At that time only the husband of the complainant was alone in the house.  O.P No. 2 informed the complainant’s husband that they have come from electric deptt. and intend to  check the electric line  and meter.  The husband of the complainant protested and saying that during last one year the line has been checked and verified four times.  But on instance of O.P. No. 2 the husband of the complainant allowed the O.P. No. 2 and his staff should installed the electric installation.  According to the complainant, O.P. No. 2   broke the seal of the mechanical meter No. 411722060329 and asked for a replacement of the mechanical meter with a digital one.   The O.P. no. 2 bargained with the husband of the complainant and settled at Rs. 60,000/-  and assured the complainant’s husband that when money will be paid then the receipt will be given.  But the husband refused to pay without any written order.  

Further the case of the complainant is that O.P. No. 2 left the premises without resealing the mechanical meter though he was requested to do the same.

According to the complainant she was not communicated, without any inspection report nor received any notice/letter from the O.P. neither for the aforesaid penalty or for disconnection of electric line. That suddenly on 29.03.18 at about 11 A.M. the O.Ps disconnected the electric line without   any   notice.  The complainant was informed by the staff that they should meet the O.P. No. 2 for restoration of electric line.  The husband   of the complainant contacted O.P No. 2 and refused to reconnect the line unless Rs. 60,000/-  is paid and repeated the  previous assurance that when penalty  will be paid the receipt will be  granted.

That according to the complainant the above act of disconnecting the line on 29.03.18 made the complainant to suffer a lot  which could not be compensated by money. It is further case of the complainant that O.P. No. 2 has never been appointed  by the State Govt.  to exercise any power  under the Electricity act or any other law to break the seal of the  mechanical meter,  demand penalty, and disconnect the  electric lines.  On the basis of the above the   complainant prays that ;

  1. the O.Ps may kindly be directed to restore electric connections to the house of the complainant under Consumer Nos. 411722060329 & 411722060241  immediately.
  2. the O.Ps  may kindly be directed to pay compensation  of Rs. 4,00,000/-(Four lakhs) to the complainant for the  harassments and mental agony caused to her by the O.P No. 2.
  3. the costs of the present case, and
  4. any other  fit and equitable reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum thinks fit and proper.


                                   The complainant also filed one petition u/s. 13 (3) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer for restoration of line to both the  connections to support her case.  She has  filed  two documents which are money receipts from January to March 2018.

As per evidence the complaint for both the connections  filed six nos. of receipts which are given below.

Sl. No.                       Order No.                   Consumer No.          Amount

1                                4850763184              411722060241         Rs. 106/-

2                                4697122916              411722060241         Rs.   89/-

3                                4544040668              411722060241         Rs.   90/-

4                                4850761565              411722060329         Rs.254/-

5                                4697119745              411722060329         Rs.192/-

6                                4544047096              411722060329         Rs. 183/-

                                   After receipt of notice the O.Ps made their appearance and on 06.04.2018 filed a petition stating that the case is under 126 of the l.E.  Act 2003. In this petition they prayed for withdrawal of the interim order, which was passed by this forum. On dt. 12.04.2018 the O.Ps filed a written statement.  Their main contention is that vigilance squad WESCO made a routine check up on the premises of the complainant on 10.03.18. The husband  of the complainant  was  present during the time of  checking.  The vigilance squad found that there was  by-pass of 6.5 k.w. of load factor  against the  permitted load of 2 k.w. . There was a total load factor of 10.5  k.w.  in both the meters.  The physical verification report (PVR) was prepared on the spot. The by-pass patch map was prepared and the signature of the complainant’s husband was taken and one copy was handed over to the complainant on the same day.  This PVR report was sent to the O.P.  No. 2 to made a provisional assessment order u/s. 126 of Indian Electricity Act  2003 against the complainant with the penalty of Rs. 1,19,590/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand five hundred ninety only). A messenger was sent with the order which was refused to be received by the complainant.  Hence the messenger affixed the order on the wall of the premises on dt. 14.03.18 .  The assessing Officer u/s. 126 of the IE Act 2003 made the final assessment order on dt. 31.03.18 which was posted on 5.4.18 as the complainant earlier had refused the professional assessment order dt.14.03.18. The final assessment order was made/compiled within a stipulated period of thirty days from the date of  issuance of provisional order as per the act.  According to the O.Ps.  the complainant  agitated the matter before this forum on dt. 04.04.18  and u/s. 56 of the Electricity Act 2003. According to this  O.P. the matter is squarely  u/s. 126 of the Electricity Act 2003.  And the  consumer forum has no role to adjudicate the matter, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court ‘s  decision in U.P.  power corporation ltd. Vrs. Anis Ahmad  in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court  has  held that “ Act of person indulging in unauthorized use of  electricity  does not fall within the mandate of  complaint and therefore the complaint against the  assessment  order of sec 126 of the IE Act 2003 is not maintainable in consumer forum”.   The aggrieved consumer can file an appeal u/s. 127  of the IE Act 2003 against  the assessment order before the Grievance Redressal  Forum (GRF) and from the order of the GRF  an appeal can be filed before the CE ombudsman u/s. 42 (7) of the IE Act 2003. According to the O.Ps the complainant  has got  three forums  available to her  instead of utilizing this forum.  She has come up with a case before this forum and according to them this forum has  no jurisdiction  to entertain such an application on the basis of the above prayed that the case is  coming u/s. 126  and not 56 of the IE Act.  Hence the case may be kindly dropped or dismissed. To substantiate their claim they have filed documents as per list.

Sl. No.            Date                Description                                                 Remarks

   1                  10.03.18          PVR of Consumer                                     Original

                2                  14.03.18          Provisional Assessment Order                  Original

u/s. 126  IE Act. 2003 to G. Mishra         (O/C) 2 sheets

   3                   31.03.18          Final Assessment Order                            

05.04.18          u/s. 126 (3)  IE Act. 2003  to G. Mishra    Original

                                            through Regd. Post/A.D                             (O/C) 2sheets

4                  05.04.18          True copy of Post A.D & receipt               True copy

     5                                                         Tracking report of the Final assessment    

Order u/s. 126 (3) to G.Mishra sent through

R.P/A.D , delivered on 06.04.18                     Net copy


                                   On receipt of the written version of the O.Ps the complainant filed  one petition under order 19  rule 2 of the CPC which was orally objected by the O.P’s Advocate and vide order of this forum dt. 24.04.18 the petition was rejected. The complainant further filed one lists of documents which is the Advocate notice dt. 21.04.18. The O.P. had filed the written argument on 03.05.18 along with the  Xerox copy of Sambad of dt. 15.04.18 stating that the WESCO was penalized  by this forum.  The complainant  files  another list of documents on 03.05.18 which is as follows;

  1. Copy of Plaint of CS No. 113/2018 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur.
  2. Copy of petition u/o 39, R-2 & 2 of IA No. 16/2018 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur.

The complainant also filed one affidavit evidence on behalf of the complainant this was  vehemently objected to by the Advocate of the O.Ps.

After hearing arguments from both the sides the Affidavit petition was rejected and heard argument of the case.  The main point of the argument of the Learned Advocate of the complainant is that on 10.03.18 the O.P No. 2 broke upon the seal of the mechanical meter, bargained the penalty price without giving any order.  On 29.03.18 both the line were disconnected & the complainant approached this Forum and the O.Ps were with an interim order asked to reconnect the line and on 06.04.18  the connections were restored.

                                                 On 06.04.2018  the registered notice u/s. 126  (3)  was  received by the complainant.  This was issued without any prior provisional assessment order.

The complainant on 20.04.18  filed one C.S. No.113/18 and IA No.16/18 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur.  The case is pending before Civil Judge.

                                                 According to the Advocate for the complainant u/s. 127 of the Electricity Act enumerates how  service is to be made only on refusal by the person namely re-noticed, the notice can be affixed in the presence of witness.  In this case the order dt. 14.03.18 was not properly served.  The O.Ps had not  produced any witness or peon book  or the peon. Hence according to the Learned Advocate for the complainant order dt. 14.03.18  and 31.03.18  are null and void as the O.Ps had not compiled the provision/section 127 (3) of the Electricity Act 2003.

                                                 According to the complainant the O.Ps had not filed any notification u/s. 126 who is authorized by the State Govt., to conduct inspection and preparation of PVR., S.D.O. was never appointed by the State Govt.  who act as the Assessing Officer and hence the order dt. 14.03.16 and 31.03.18  are void ab- initio.

                                                 On the basis of the above  the Learned Advocate  for the complainant  argued that matter does not fall u/s. 126 of the Electricity Act as the O.P.s have violated the safeguard prescribed under section 127 and hence this forum has ample power to grant   the release claim to the petition. The complainant filed one written argument.

                                                 The Learned Advocate for the O.P. stuck to the stand taken up among that the matter squarely falls u/s. 126. He also refuted the plan of the complainant that O.P. No. 2 raided the house of the complainant and broke open the seal of the meter.

                                                 According to the Learned Advocate for the O.Ps the complainant has taken two connections of 2 K.W. of 2 each.  One for up stair and another for down stair.  One connection is absolutely correct. On 10.03.18  at around 10.15 A.M.  the vigilance team comprise of two persons jointly conducted an inspection on the premises of the complainant. The vigilance team found that the complainant was using  unauthorized  load of 6.5 K.W..  The vigilance team found that for the two connections  the complainant is using 10.5 K.W.  load factor.  This 6.5 K.W.  is above the  permitted load factor of 2.K.W.  The vigilance team  found that the complainant has by-passed the meter.  And they prepared a  physical verification report (PVR) and the PVR report was signed by the husband of the complainant in Spot.

                                               The O.P. was intimated by the vigilance team and PVR report was handed over to him. The O.P. No. 2 sent  assessment order basing on the PVR  to the complainant through messenger service u/s. 126 (1) (2) of the Electricity Act 2003. The Learned Advocate  for the O.Ps argued that electricity act authorized the authority to affix the service.  Hence affixture was made by the concerned peon.

                                                             On dt. 31.03.18 final assessment order was passed u/s. 126 of the electricity Act .  This was regd. on 05.04.18 and the complainant received the same on 06.04.18.

                                                             As a defence to the disconnection of both the lines the learned Advocate for the O.P.  submitted that the O.Ps had disconnected the line of the impugned meter  No.  411722060329 on dt. 14.03.18. The staff of the O.P.s  made a surprise visit to the premises of the complainant on 29.03.18 and found that the complainant  has illegally reconnected the disconnected matter from the ground floor meter No. 411722060241.  This is a clear violation of the agreement between the complainant and the utility. This is also a theft of electricity which  comes under section 135 of the electricity  act (the complainant was not booked for theft as per provision) finding no alternative, the staff of the O.Ps  on dt.29.03.18 disconnected both the lines as the complainant has circumvented the law and did an act which is clear violation of law.  They further submitted that all the documents given & submitted before the forum are genuine and not fabricated.  He elaborated on the squeezing of authority of this forum, by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the U.P. Power Corporation  Vrs Anis Ahmad  and strongly submitted that this forum has no jurisdiction to conduct the case as  held in the above citation.


We have gone through  the submission of the Learned Advocate’s for both the sides. Also gone through the documents.  Initially  the case was filed u/s. 56 of the electricity act along with the petition u/s. 13(3)(b) of the  Consumer protection Act 1986, the complainant satisfied this forum that as she  is paying her dues regularly, there is no reason for disconnection of the line.  On the  submission we were satisfied that deficiency in service was committed by the O.Ps.  Hence an interim State order was granted for  reconnection of the line.  

The O.Ps appears through their advocates. The Learned Advocate successfully converted the initial case which was filed u/s. 56 of the electricity Act to one coming under 126  of the Electricity Act 2003. The Hon’ble  Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Vrs Anis Ahmad as dealt thoroughly with the provision of Electricity Act and vis a vis the C.P. Act and  held that  once it  is established that the complainant has violated  section 126 electricity Act 2003  then he has  no  more a  complainant   as defined u/s. 2 (1) (b).  And the dispute between the complainant and the utility is no more a consumer dispute as defined u/s. 2 (e)  of the Consumer Protection Act .  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that that consumer forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under sec-126 or offences u/s. 135  to 140 of the electricity Act, as the Acts of indulging  in “unauthorised   use of electric” as defined u/s. 126 or committing offence u/ss. 135 to 140  do not fall within the meaning  of complainant” as defined u/s.  2 (1) (c) of the  C.P. Act 1986.

The decision further elaborate that the “complaint “ against assessment u/s. 126  is not maintainable  before the Consumer Forum.

Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India,  this is a law of the land.  Accordingly  we held that  the case squarely falls under section 126 of the electricity act and hence we dismiss the case as not maintainable before this forum.

                        Under the circumstances the parties are to bear their own 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.