SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency-in-service against the Opposite Parties.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops bearing consumer No.322104051053 having old account No.IAC-0020 and new account No.11212010781 with a contract demand of 7 KW. He used to pay the electric dues regularly till today as per meter reading. The complainant has a small garage in Basta Market from which he used to earn his livelihood. But, on 2.1.2023, the OP No.1 along with staff have entered into his house and checked the meter and return back and again on 23.1.2023 had been to his house and removed the old meter and installed a new meter and demanded Rs.10,000/- and taken his signature on a plain paper and threatened unless he paid the aforesaid amount, they will disconnect the power supply to his premises. In the month of December, 2022, the Ops had communicated the aforesaid bill on the complainant and on 25.1.2023, the Ops have disconnected the power supply. Thus, the complainant visited the office of the Ops and requested the Ops for restoration of electricity to his premises, but they turned a deaf ear to it.
The cause of action arose for filing of this case on 25.1.2023, when the Ops entered into his house and disconnected the electric line illegally and on 9.2.2023, when the complainant went to the office of the Ops and requested to restore the power supply. Thus, the complainant was constrained to file the present case. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-
- Photocopy of electric Bill dated 14.12.2023.
3. In this case, the Ops have entered their appearance and filed their joint written version challenging the maintainability of the case and cause of action for filing the case. They have stated, inter alia, that the complainant is a commercial consumer bearing consumer No.IAC-0020 having contract demand of 7.00 KW. On 3.2.2023, the verification squad made a spot verification in presence of the complainant they found he was availing power supply tempering the meter. Thus, spot verification report was prepared followed by provisional assessment order amounting to Rs.2,75,924/- and served on 2.1.2023, but the complainant was refused to receive the same. Thereafter, upon hearing, as the complainant did not appear nor filed any objection, final assessment order was passed for the said amount and served on the complainant. The complainant has not preferred any appeal as required under the law before the appropriate Authority. Therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to sit over the matter. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
In order to prove their case, the Ops have relied upon the following documents which are placed in the case record –
- Photocopy of spot verification report.
- Photocopy of provisional assessment order.
- Photocopy of final assessment order.
- Photocopy of video photographs taken at the time of spot verification.
4. As it appears from the case record, it is seen that the complainant remained absent since long. On the other hand, the Ops have submitted that the complainant has intentionally avoided to take part in the hearing of the case. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is constrained to pass the final order taking into consideration the merit of the case. 5. On perusal of the pleading of both the parties and the documents placed on their behalf. It is found that this is a clear case of an assessment order and the complainant has challenged the assessment order passed by the Ops.
In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in III (20213) CLT-55 (SC) in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & others –v- Anis Ahmad have been pleased to observed that complaint against assessment made U/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. It is the Civil Court to sit upon the matter with respect to the decision of the assessing Officer. 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, thus, also the complaint against any action taken U/s 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. By virtue of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Section 173, 174 & 175 of Electricity Act, 2003, Consumer Forum cannot drive power to adjudicate a dispute relating 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. In the present case, neither the complainant complied the assessment order made by the Ops nor knocked the door of the Appellate Authority, as required U/s 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. From the above discussions, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The complaint of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops without any cost.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 22nd day of July, 2024 under signature & seal of the Commission.
