The complainant is a registered consumer in respect of meter bearing registration RR No. BDC 27254.  The energy sanction letter shows that 1 KV load electricity was provided.  LTC 3 charges are applicable to the supply vide Ex.A.2 dated: 22-04-2014.  The complainant has furnished certain receipts, which shows that he has paid the electricity charges in respect of this meter for several months.  The last payment was at receipt No. 24027 dated: 17-11-2014 for Rs.425=00

2.  The notice as per Ex.A11 dated: 25-10-2014 was issued to the complainant by the AEE, GESCOM, Koppal which reads as follows;

“ದಿನಾಂಕ: 29-10-2014 ರಂದು ಅಂದಾಜು 12.00 ಪಿ.ಎಂ. ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಶ್ರೀ ಕೆ.ಶಿವಾರೆಡ್ಡಿ, ಪಿ.1, ಶ್ರೀ ಕಿಶೋರ್ ಪಿ.ಸಿ. ಮತ್ತು ಪಂಚರು . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  ಇವರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕೂಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಬೂದಗುಂಪಾ ಗ್ರಾಮದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀ ಅನ್ನದಾತ ನರ್ಸರಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಸ್ಥಾವರ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: . . . . . . . ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮಣ್ಣ ಸಂಗಟಿ ತಂದೆ ಕರೀಮಪ್ಪ ಮತ್ತು ಶ್ರೀ ಜಿ. ಮದನ ತಂದೆ: ಆನಂದಬಾಬು ಅವರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮದಲ್ಲಿ ತನಿಖೆ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಗ್ರಾಹಕರ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ ತಮ್ಮ ನರ್ಸರಿಗೆ ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಮೀಟರ್ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಪಕ್ಕದ ಜಮೀನಿನ ಉಚಿತ ನೀರನ್ನು ಅನಧಿಕೃತವಾಗಿ ನರ್ಸರಿಗೆ ಬಳಸಿ . . . . . .  ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಕಳ್ಳತನ ಮಾಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಉಪಕರಣಗಳಿಗೆ ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿ ಅನಧಿಕೃತ ಲಾಭ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವು ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ.” 

3.  The loss assessed by the GESCOM authorities as per Ex.A.4 wherein name and address of the consumer are mentioned as follows;

    Name and Address of consumer:  1.  Sri Ramanna Sangathi

                                                            S/o: Kariyappa Sangathi,

                                                            Age: 55 Years, Occ: Land Owner

                                                     2.  Sri G.Madan S/o: Anandababu,

                                                            Age: 27 Years, Owner of Nursary

                                                             Budagumpa Cross village.

            4.  In item No.6 of Ex.A.4, mode of theft is as follows;

“Inspite of having RR No.BDC-27524 energy meter using un-authorisingly the Agriculture Land, bore-well water (which is exclusively should be used for agriculture purpose) for commercial Nursery purpose, which committed theft of energy.

5.  FIR contents as mentioned in Ex.A.3 reads as follows;

“ದಿನಾಂಕ: 20.10.2014 ರಂದು ಶ್ರೀ ಬಾಲಾಜಿಸಿಂಗ್ ಎಇಇ, ಜೆಸ್ಕಾಂ ಜಾಗೃತದಳ ಪೋಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆ ಕೊಪ್ಪಳ ರವರು ಕಾಲಂ ನಂ-6 ರಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಆರೋಪಿತನು ತಮ್ಮ ನರ್ಸರಿಗೆ ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಮೀಟರ್ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಪಕ್ಕದ ಜಮೀನಿನ ಉಚಿತ ಪಂಪ್‍ಸೆಟ್ ನೀರನ್ನು ಅನಧಿಕೃತವಾಗಿ ತಮ್ಮ ನರ್ಸರಿಗೆ ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಕಳ್ಳತನ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.  ಇದರಿಂದ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ 6480 ಯೂನಿಟ್ಸ್ ನಷ್ಟ ಉಂಟು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.  ಇದರ ಬಿ.ಬಿ.ಸಿ. ಹಣ 30,553=00 ಹಾಗೂ ಕಂಪೌಂಡಿಂಗ್ ಹಣ 4,000=00 ಗಳಷ್ಟು ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ನಷ್ಟ ಉಂಟುಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.  ಅಂತಾ ಲಿಖಿತ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಾರಾಂಶದ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ದಾಖಲಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.  ಈ ಪ್ರ.ವ. ವರದಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಮೂಲ ಫಿರ್ಯಾಧಿಯನ್ನು ಲಗತ್ತಿಸಿ ಮಾನ್ಯರವರಲ್ಲಿ ನಿವೇದಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.”

            6.  The Inspection Report, Ex.A5 contains sketch showing the manner of theft according to the GESCOM authorities.  We will find from the sketch that the meter in RR No. BDC 27524 is not tampered but the electricity supply being taken from elsewhere from direct line.  So the demand is not in respect of the Meter No. BDC 27524.

            7.  In the complaint, the complainant states that he has taken lease of 20 guntas of land in Sy.No. 78/D  belonging to one Ramanna Sangathi S/o: Kariyanna Sangathi for a period of 5 years and therefore he is using the water of that land for nursery purpose.

            8.  According to the complainant, penalty of Rs.34,553=00 demanded in Ex.A.1 notice is illegal and challenged this demand seeking for compensation under the following heads;

1. For mental and physical harassment    -           Rs. 30,000.00 
2. For deficiency in service                           -           Rs. 28,000.00
3. For litigation and other expenses           -           Rs.   5,000.00

TOTAL                     -           Rs. 63,000.00

            9.  The defence version of the GESCOM is that there is no deficiency in service as there was pilferage of electricity by the consumer as disclosed from the inspection of the GESCOM authorities of the premises in occupation of the complainant.

            10.  Clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126, defines “unauthorized use of electricity” as the usage of electricity by any artificial means; or by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or through a tampered meter; or for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized; or for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized.

            All the aforesaid acts constitute “offences” under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as noticed above.

            11.  In the present case, the complainant claims that he has taken lease of 20 guntas land belonging to one Ramanna for a period of 5 years for Nursery purpose.  To prove the same, the complainant has furnished Ex.A.6, which discloses that land has been taken on lease for annual rent of Rs.28,000/- w.e.f. 16-12-2013 with a term that discloses that the lessee is entitle to use 5000 liters of water from the bore-well belonging to the owner in his land during every year and if any objection, he will take responsibility.  The fact that the complainant is running a nursery in the land belonging to Ramanna is not in dispute.  Remanna is an agriculturist getting free supply of electricity as per policy of the Government of Karnataka.  According to OP, supply of water for the purpose of Nursery not for agriculture and hence pilferage of electricity.

            12.  In the case of UP Power Corporation Ltd., & Ors., V/s Anis Ahmad – III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC), the Supreme Court held, a complaint against the assessment made by the assessment officer u/sec. 126 of Electricity Act – 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.  But this decision is not applicable to facts of present case for the reason that the complainant was not using the electricity unauthorisingly in so far as the energy supplied through meter bearing RR No. BDC 27524, for which the complainant is a registered consumer.  The FIR relates to unauthorized drawing of the electricity from the supply line that is altogether a different land.  The offence, if any to be tried by the Special Court established under the Electricity Act – 2003.  As such there is no pilferage of electricity through meter RR No. BDC 27524.  However, we find that the notice Ex.A.1 do not pertain to electricity meter RR No. BDC 27524. 

            13.  In the decision of the Supreme Court referred above, in paragraph – 45, the Supreme Court held as follows;

“45.  The National Commission though held that the intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and have saved the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, failed to notice that by virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections 173, 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity” as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Sections 135 to 140 do not fall, within the meaning of “complaint” as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            14.  In paragraph – 47 of the decision aforementioned, the Supreme Court observed as follows;

1. In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint” as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.
3. The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or
   asso-ciation of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to “unfair trade practice” or a “respective trade practice adopted by the service provider”; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law.”

            15.  Following the above decision, the complaint is dismissed.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.