State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Krishna Laximan Dhake, on 23 November, 2011
1 F.A.No.:773/2007
Date of filing :30.07.2007
Date of order :23.11.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :773 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 149 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : BEED.
Assistant Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. ,
Majalgaon, Tq.Majalgaon,
Dist.Beed. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Opponent )
VERSUS
Krishna Laximan Dhake,
Prop.Hotel Girija Nilayam, Dharur Road,
Majalgaon, Tq.Majalgaon,
Dist.Beed. ...RESPONDENT
(Org.Complainant )
CORAM : Mr.D.N.Admane, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale for appellant, None for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
1. Assistant Engineer, M.S.E.B., Beed preferred this appeal against judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum, Beed on 6.6.2007 in Complaint case No.149/2006.
2. The facts in a nutshell are as under.
Complainant Krishna Laxman Dhake proprietor of Hotel Girija Nilayam, resident of Dharur Road, Majalgaon, Dist.Beed is nephew of 2 F.A.No.:773/2007 one Ganpat Maruti Dhake who died three years before filing of complaint. It is alleged by complainant that said Ganpat Dhake had obtained electric supply by consumer No.585010068124 from appellant MSEDCL. Meter number 8000577095 was installed by MSEDCL for the electric supply. It is alleged by complainant that complainant is running hotel as legal heir of Ganpat Dhake. On 3.8.2006 he received bill of Rs.6640/- which was paid by complainant. Thereafter on 26.9.2006 he received bill of Rs.1,29,020/- which was shocking. Therefore he approached to appellant and intimated about excessive bill. Officer of MSEDCL informed that we are inquiring in the matter but complainant is to deposit the bill. Therefore complainant approached the Forum for quashing and setting aside the bill.
3. Appellant appeared before the Forum and denied the claim. It is submitted that on the visit of flying squad headed by Dy. Executive Engineer,Ratnagir it was found that complainant is indulging in theft of electricity. Accordingly, criminal case No.293/2001 was filed against the complaint. There is no deficiency in service.
4. After hearing both the parties Dist.Forum allowed the complaint and quashed bill dated 26.9.2006, Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and cost.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. came in appeal.
6. Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale appeared for appellant. Adv.Shri.A.D.Kale had appeared for respondent. Today none appeared for respondent. We heard Adv.Shri.Tandale. It is submitted by Adv.Tandale that at the outset it can be seen that complainant has no locus standi to file appeal as electric connection was in the name of Ganpat Maroti Dhake who is now deceased. It is further submitted by Adv.Tandale 3 F.A.No.:773/2007 that as theft case was registered against the said complainant Forum ought not to have adjudicated the said case as Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to decide case of theft of electricity. It is submitted by Adv.Tandale that flying squad inspected the hotel o 11.9.2001 and filed the criminal case against the complainant.
7. We heard Adv.S.N.Tandale for appellant and perused the record. It is revealed from the record that complainant Krishna Dhake who was not consumer of the appellant filed the complaint. Therefore he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. As bill was related to theft of electricity in our view Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint regarding theft of electricity. In that respect we are relying on BSES Yamuna Power Ltd Versus Neeraj Kumar III (2011) CPJ 388 (NC) It is recently held by National Commission that offences under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 dealing specifically with theft ( or, dishonest abstraction) of electricity in various ways ( including tampering of meters ) ( and offences under Sections 136 to 140 as well as 150 ) are to be tried and decided only by Special Courts to be constituted by the State Government concerned under Section 153 of the electricity Act, 2003.By relying on the said judgment we are allowing the appeal. Hence, 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.
3. Complaint stand dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora D.N.Admane Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane