State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satish vs Mppkvvco.Ltd. on 16 December, 2020
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING FIRST APPEL NO. 843 OF 2020 (Arising out of order dated 27.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.45/2016 by the District Commission Mandsaur) SATISH S/O AMBALAL. ... APPELLANT Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (VIGILANCE) M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. MANDSAUR. ... RESPONDENT. BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR : PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI PRABHAT PARASHAR : MEMBER O R D E R 16.12.2020 Shri Ajay Bhawsar, learned counsel for the appellant. As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar : Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandsaur (For short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.45/2016 whereby his complaint has been dismissed, the complainant has filed this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case as portrayed by the appellant/complainant are that he had obtained 8 HP non-domestic electricity connection no. 90-47-53217 from the opposite party/respondent M. P. Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited (For short 'Electricity Company'). The complainant alleged that the in the panchnama prepared by the opposite parties connected load was -2- shown wrongly as 18 HP in place of 8 HP and raised demand under provisional assessment order. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, the complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission for cancellation of said assessment order along with compensation and cost.
3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint stating that the complainant was drawing electricity in an unauthorized manner against the prescribed/sanctioned load capacity and proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 have been initiated against him and therefore this complaint is not maintainable.
4. The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the dispute is not maintainable as the respondent has initiated the proceedings for theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence this appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of record we find that the record reveals that present case is based on allegation of theft of electricity. Respondent have inspected the premises of the appellant on 18.10.2014 and found connected load of 18 HP as against the sanctioned load of 8 HP of which panchnama was prepared in the presence of the complainant and raised a provisional assessment under Section 126/135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 dated 19.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.1,66,504/-. The Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmad, III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC) has held that a Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Section 135 to -3- 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as acts of indulging in unauthorized use of electricity as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act do not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in respect of the disputed penal bill. The complaint being not maintainable before the District Commission has rightly been dismissed by the District Commission.
6. As a result, we find no cogent reasons to interfere with the impugned order.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Prabhat Parashar) President Member