The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the J.E, Electrical, NESCO, Chandipur Section, Chandipur, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O, Electrical, NESCO, Supply-I, Kalimandir, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Executive Engineer, NESCO, Electrical, BED, Balia, Balasore.   

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.B21-0524(C) and was paying electric bills regularly to the O.Ps. On 30.03.2017, the Officials of the O.Ps detected that some portion of service wire was damaged and the O.Ps have black tapped the damaged wire and also the O.Ps have managed to obtain the signature of the Complainant forcefully in a paper. Thereafter, the O.Ps threatened the Complainant to give Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only, otherwise they will prepare one false list in the name of the Complainant showing as 3 K.W meter instead of 2.5 K.W and also imposed penalty against the Complainant. On 17.06.2017, the Complainant received a electric bill of Rs.1,08,398/- (Rupees One lakh eight thousand three hundred ninety eight) only, in which the O.Ps have intentionally and illegally assessed and also imposed a huge amount of penalty against the Complainant. Thereby, the Complainant approached the O.Ps several times to rectify the said bill, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it, rather on 07.10.2017, the O.Ps threatened the Complainant that if the Complainant will not pay the penalty bill, the O.Ps will not take the regular electric bill for each month consumed by the Complainant, causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. Cause of action arose on 07.10.2017. The Complainant has prayed for rectification of electric bill along with compensation and litigation cost. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    3. The O.P No.1 has appeared in this case through his Advocate and he has filed his written version beyond the statutory period, for which the written version is not accepted. The O.P No.1 is also set ex-parte.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.Ps No.2 & 3 through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps No.2 & 3 have further submitted that on 30.03.2017, a spot verification was made by the O.Ps and detected that the Complainant was availing power supply unauthorisedly to the tune of 3 K.W against the connected load of 2.5 K.W by cutting the service wire before the meter. Thus, spot verification report was prepared on the spot and also served to the Complainant. Thereafter, the provisional assessment U/s.126 (2) of Electricity (Amendment), 2007 has been prepared for un-authorized consumption and served to the Complainant vide Order No.164, dtd.03.04.2017 and informed to file objection, if any against the provisional assessment within 7 days after receiving the provisional assessment order before the O.Ps. But, the Complainant did not file any objection, for which final assessment was prepared for an amount of Rs.1,08,140/- (Rupees One lakh eight thousand one hundred forty) only and served to the Complainant vide letter No.205, dtd.10.05.2017 and asked to clear up the penal bill within the statutory period from the date of receipt of final assessment order. But, the Complainant without clearing the penal amount, has filed this case before the Forum. In addition, a “complaint” against the assessment made by Assessing Officer U/s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the offences committed U/s.135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. So, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                     5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                     6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case. So, his pleading is his case. According to his pleading, the O.Ps have verified the premises of the Complainant on 30.03.2017 and found that some portion of service wire was damaged, for which they have black tapped the damaged wire. Thereafter, the O.Ps threatened the Complainant for payment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only, otherwise they will enhance the meter load as 3 K.W instead of 2.5 K.W and also impose penalty against the Complainant. The Complainant received a bill of Rs.1,08,398/- (Rupees One lakh eight thousand three hundred ninety eight) only from the O.Ps on 17.06.2017 imposing a huge amount of penalty against him. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the O.Ps for rectification of the said bills, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it, rather threatened not to take regular monthly electric bill consumed by the Complainant, causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant has filed this case praying for rectification of electric bill along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the O.P No.1 is set ex-parte as mentioned earlier and it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps No.2 & 3 that on 30.03.2017, the O.Ps have verified the premises of the Complainant, where they have found that the Complainant was availing power supply unauthorisedly. Thus, a spot verification report was prepared and the same report was served to the Complainant. Thereafter, observing necessary formalities of Law, provisional assessment order U/s.126 (2) of Electricity (Amendment), 2007 was prepared and served to the Complainant and also informed to file objection against the provisional assessment order. But, the Complainant has not filed any objection against the provisional assessment order and accordingly, final assessment order for an amount of Rs.1,08,140/- (Rupees One lakh eight thousand one hundred forty) only was prepared and also served to the Complainant. But, the Complainant has neither complied the assessment order made by the O.Ps nor appealed before the appellate authority, rather filed this case in this Forum. So, when there is an assessment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. However, in view of the authority reported in III (2013) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Vrs.) Anis Ahmad, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that complaint against assessment made U/s.126 or action taken against those committing offences U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003, held, is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. Civil Court’s jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect to the decision of assessing Officer U/s.126 or with respect to a decision of the appellate authority U/s.127 is barred U/s.145 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, it is clear that after notice of provisional assessment to the person alleged to have indulged in unauthorized 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 and does not fall within the meaning of “consumer dispute” U/s. 2(1) (e) of Consumer Protection Act. Offences referred to in Sections-135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted U/s.153 of Electricity Act, 2003, hence, also the complaint against any action taken under Sections-135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section-3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections-173, 174 and 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made U/s.126, or offences U/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity” do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” as defined U/s. 2(1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority along with an application for condonation of delay, if desired/ required. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against O.P No.1 and on contest against O.Ps No.2 & 3, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 29th day of November, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.