State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kiransingh Pratapsingh Gour vs Executive Engineer,Mseb, Mseb Bhavan, ... on 22 June, 2011
1 F.A.No.:1120/2007
Date of filing :16.10.2007
Date of order :22.06.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :1120 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:239 OF 2005
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :NANDED.
Kiransingh Pratapsingh Gour,
R/o Station Road, Nanded. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Complainant )
VERSUS
1. Executive Engineer,
MSEB, MSEB Bhavan,
New Mondha, Nanded.
2. Dy.Executive Engineer,
MSEB Urban Sub-Division-1,
Vajirabad, Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS
(Org.Opponents)
CORAM : Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member,
Shri.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : None for appellant,
Adv.Shri.Vijay Patil for respondents.
O R A L O R D E R
Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
1. Kiransingh Pratapsingh Gour resident of Nanded
Org.Complainant appellant herein challenges in this appeal order passed by District Consumer Forum, Nanded in C.C.No.239/2005 on 21.8.2007.
2. The facts of the complaint are as under.
Complainant is consumer of respondents, his consumer number is 55001001439 on 12.9.2005 employees of respondent suddenly visited the hotel of complainant and inspected the electric meter. Thereafter on 28.9.2005 bill of Rs.1,10,617/- issued for theft 2 F.A.No.:1120/2007 of energy by the complainant. Therefore complainant approached before the Forum.
3. Respondent appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint on the ground that complaint is about the bill issued for the electricity theft committed by the complainant. Therefore Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
4. After hearing both the parties Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant committed theft.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order complainant came in appeal.
6. Adv.Shri.A.S.Deshpande had appeared for appellant and Adv.Shri.Vijay Patil appeared for respondents. Complaint is filed for quashing and setting aside the electricity bill of Rs.1,10,617/- towards theft of energy issued by respondent to the complainant. Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that matter is pertaining to theft. In our view Forum ought to have considered the evidence on record and to decide the complaint. Assessment for tampering meter appears to have been made U/s 126 of Electricity Act 2003. Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act and Section 175 of Electricity Act specifically provide that provisions of Consumer Protection Act as well as Electricity Act are in addition and not in derogation of any provision of any law for the time being in force. Section 173 of Electricity Act 2003 reads as under.
Section 173 :Inconsistency in law.: Nothing contained in this Act or any rule or regulations made thereunder or any instrument having effect by virtue of this Act, rule or regulation shall have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any other provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(68 of 1986) or the Atomic Energy Act, 1962(33 of 1962) or the Railways Act, 1989.
Section 175 of Electricity Act 2003 reads as under.
3 F.A.No.:1120/2007Section 175:Provisions of this Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of other laws: The provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
Thus the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is not barred by any provision of Electricity Act but same is saved in Section 173 reads with Section 175 of Electricity Act. Forum is to consider the complaint on the ground that whether the bill was issued by following the procedure prescribed under the Electricity Act. Forum is to consider whether the procedure for assessing the bill, recording the theft, disconnection of electricity was followed or not. This comes under the purview of deficiency in service. If the procedure is not followed there is definitely deficiency in service. Forum is to consider the facts and provision of law. In the instant case Forum ought not to have dismissed the complaint on the ground that as the electricity theft is committed Forum has no jurisdiction. Hence we are remanding the matter to the Dist.Forum for deciding afresh.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum is hereby quashed and set aside and matter is remanded back to the Forum for deciding afresh by affording opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Parties to appear before the Dist.Forum on 22.08.2011.
5. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
6. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Uma S.Bora,
4 F.A.No.:1120/2007
Member Presiding Member.
Mane