State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Govindrao Chandrabhanji Dehankar vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 26 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR 5th Floor, Administrative Building No. 1 Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 First Appeal No. A/10/710 (Arisen out of Order Dated 13/10/2010 in Case No. CC/240/09 of District Amravati) Govindrao Chandrabhanji Dehankar Nerpingalai, Tah. Morshi Amaravati ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd Through its Executive Engineer Morshi, Taluka Morshi District Amaravati 2. Junior Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd Nerpingalai, Tah. Morshi Amaravati ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/10/697 (Arisen out of Order Dated 13/10/2010 in Case No. CC/240/09 of District Amravati) 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd Through its Executive Engineer Morshi, Taluka Morshi District Amaravati 2. Junior Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd Nerpingalai, Tah. Morshi Amaravati ...........Appellant(s) Versus Govindrao Chandrabhanji Dehankar Nerpingalai, Tah. Morshi Amaravati ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: Hon'able Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member Hon'ble Smt.Jayshree Yengal Member Hon'ble Mr.N. Arumugam Member PRESENT: Adv. Mr Potdukhe ..for the Appellant in Appeal No.A/10/710 & ..for the Respondent in Appeal No.A/10/697 Adv. Mr A V Khare ..for the Respondents in Appeal No.A/10/710 & ..for the Appellants in Appeal No.A/10/697 JUDGEMENT
(Passed on 23.09.2013) Per Mr B A Shaikh, Honble Presiding Member
1. Both these appeals are directed against the same order dtd.13.10.2010 passed in C.C. No.240/09/ by D.F. Amravati by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the original complainant, who filed one of the appeals No. A/10/710 as set out in the complaint in brief is that he is the consumer of the org. O.P.No.1 & 2 who filed the counter appeal No. A/10/697. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2 made false allegations of committing theft of electricity worth Rs.13,430/- against the said complainant and disconnected his electric supply. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2 also prosecuted him for the offence of theft of electricity, by filing a criminal case No. 105/2007. The complainant has been acquitted on 11.02.2009 by Special Court in that case.
He therefore, served notice dtd.04.05.2009 to the o.p.No.1 & 2. Thereupon the complainant filed complaint before the Forum below, requesting for grant of compensation of Rs.15.00 Lacs towards loss sustained by him due to disconnection of his electric supply. He also requested for grant of compensation of Rs.1.00 Lac towards mental harassment and he sought direction to O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to restore his electric supply.
3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2 filed their Written Version and resisted the complaint. They submitted in brief that on 30.09.2005 the premises of the complainant were inspected by their officials and found that he supplied electricity to three other persons through his house by committing theft of the said electricity and therefore, Panchanama was prepared and report was lodged with the Police. They present bill of assessment on the basis of the theft of the electricity and disconnected his electric supply. Police filed criminal case against the complainant in the Court and complainant has been acquitted by that Court on 11.09.2009. The reply to the notice of the complainant was sent by them. They submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as dispute pertains to assessment of the consumption of electricity on the basis of the offence of theft and hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The District Forum below after considering evidence brought on record held that the complaint has been acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. On 11.02.2009 as offence of theft is not proved against him and hence, the action taken by the O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 cannot be said to be as per law. It therefore, held that there is deficiency in service provided by O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 to the complainant. It therefore, partly allowed the complaint and cancelled the bill of Rs.13,430/-. It directed the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 to restore the electric supply of the complainant without cost within one month of the receipt of the said order, otherwise to pay penalty of Rs.1,000/- p.m. It also directed O.P. Nos.1 & 2 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards loss sustained by him within one month and in case of default, the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.
5. Being aggrieved by that order, the original Complainant has preferred appeal No.A/10/710 to enhance the compensation. The original O.P.Nos.1 & 2 have preferred appeal No. A/10/697 to set aside the said order.
7. Adv. Mr A V Khare filed Written Notes of Argument for the appellant in appeal No. A/10/697.
8. We have heard Adv. Mr Potdukhe who appeared for appellant in appeal No. A/10/710 and for respondent in A/10/697. We have also heard Adv. Mr A V Khare who appeared for respondent in appeal No. A/10/710 and for appellant in A/10/697. We have also perused the papers placed before us.
9. During the course of arguments the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court recently given in the case of U P Power Corporation & Ors. Vs. Anees Ahmed, reported in III (2013) CPJ-1 ( S.C.) was brought to the notice of Adv. Mr Potdukhe of the original complainant. He submitted that since the original Complainant has been already acquitted by the Special Court in the case of theft filed against him, the said decision is not applicable to the present case.
10. On the other hand Adv. Mr A V Khare submitted that the said decision is applicable to the present case since, the standard of proof in criminal case to prove offence is beyond reasonable doubt whereas in civil liability, the said standard is not such strict but it is on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. He thus, submitted that the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, very specifically held that in such case of theft of electricity, complaint before the Forum is not maintainable. Thus, he argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, since the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.
11. The Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has very specifically laid down that the complaint against the assessment made by assessing officer u/s 126 or against the offences committed u/s 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. In that case no distinction is made when the complainant is acquitted by the Special Court. We thus, find that the said decision is applicable to the present case even though the complainant has been acquitted by the Special Court, since the specific remedy is provided under Electricity Act, 2003 to challenge bills assessed under which assessment is made on the basis of the offence committed u/s 125 of Electricity Act, 2003.
12. Thus, we hold that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum below. In this view of the matter the impugned order cannot be sustained under law.
13. Thus, the appeal preferred by the org. Complaint deserves to be dismissed and the appeal preferred by original O.P.Nos.1 2 deserves to be allowed.
ORDER i. Appeal No. A./10/710 is dismissed. Appeal No. A/10/697 is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dtd. 13.10.2010 passed in C.C. No. 240/09 is hereby set aside.
iii. The complaint stands dismissed.
iv. No order as to cost.
v. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
[ B.A.SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER sj