State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajendra Pandey vs Mpmkvvco.Ltd. on 21 July, 2022
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.1104 / 2017.
Rajendra Kumar Pandey,
s/o Late Shri Brijkishore Pandey,
R/o Gram Kajalkhedi, Tehsil Babai,
District Hoshangabad (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1.M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Company Ltd., Through Executive Engineer, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad (M.P.).
2. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Company Ltd., Through Junior Engineer, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad (M.P.).
3. Narmada Electric & Machinery Stores, Through Proprietor Mangalwara Road, Babai, District Hoshangabad (M.P.).
4. Aquasub Engineering, Through Area Manager, Lasudiya, Indore (M.P.). .... RESPONDENTS. As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER Order 21.07.2022 Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajeev Acharya, learned counsel appears for Ms. Sapna Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2. None for the respondent no.3 and 4.
Heard.
- 2- This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.3.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (for short the "District Commission") in CC No.122/2014 by which the complaint filed by the appellant - complainant has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant had purchased a submersible pump Texmo of 5 HP from respondent no.3
- Narmada Electric & Machinery Stores for irrigation purpose and fitted the same at his agriculture land situated at Gram Gujarwada, Tehsil Babai. For the said purpose he obtained 5 HP electricity connection from the respondent no.1 and 2 - Electricity Company. On 11.1.2014 the officers of the respondent - Electricity Company conducted an inspection of the premises of the appellant and found that the appellant was using 7 HP pump as against the sanctioned load of 5 HP. A Panchanama to that effect was prepared and provisional assessment order was passed invoking provisions contained in Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The appellant approached the officers of the respondent - Electricity Company and requested for cancellation of the provisional assessment order, but no heed was paid by them and on 26.2.2014 passed the final assessment order.
3. The aforesaid action was challenged by the appellant - complainant by filing Consumer Complaint. The complaint was dismissed
- 3- by the District Commission by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he had purchased and installed the submersible pump of 5 HP but the respondent
- Electricity Company wrongly assumed it of 7 HP and raised bill on the basis of the panchanama prepared during the inspection and the provisional assessment order.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Electricity Company argued that in the reply a specific stand was taken that on account of the checking a Panchanama was prepared on 11.1.2014, the provisional assessment order has been passed and thereafter on 26.2.2014 final assessment order has already been passed and for challenging it the complaint is not maintainable. In support of the submission learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC).
6. According to learned counsel for the respondent the Supreme Court in the said case has held that a complaint against an assessment order made by the Assessment Officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable
- 4- before the Consumer Forum. He therefore argued that the District Commission has committed no error in dismissing the complaint.
7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties we find that on the basis of the said Panchanama an assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act making provisional and final assessment has been passed. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, (supra) the complaint before the Forum was not maintainable.
8. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. No interference is called for in this appeal.
9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (S. S. Bansal)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke