State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U P P C L vs Murari Lal Verma on 7 February, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2013/121 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. U P P C L a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Murari Lal Verma a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Mahesh Chand MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 07 Feb 2017 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No.121 of 2013 Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division First, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Mursangate, Hathras. ....Appellant. Versus Murari Lal Verma s/o Sri Mook Chandra, R/o Halwai Khana, Hathras. ...Respondent. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member. Shri Deepak Mehrotra for the appellant. Shri O.P. Duvel for the respondent. Date 17.2.2017 JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2012, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Hathras in complaint case No.176 of 2006, the appellant U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. has preferred the instant appeal.
Facts leading to this appeal in short are that the respondent/complainant had filed complaint case no.176 of 2006 before the District Forum, Hathras on the ground that for the electricity connection installed in his house, he has been paying regularly the bills of electricity consumption. On 11.12.2005, the appellant/OP made a checking of the electricity connection and demanded certain illegal amount from the respondent/complainant and when the demand was not met then a wrong report was prepared and the complainant was threatened that an (2) FIR will be lodged and he will be sent to jail, whereupon, under duress the complainant gave Rs.15,000.00 in the office of the OP and then the OP asked the complainant to deposit Rs.10,000.00 as compounding fees. The complainant was given only a receipt of Rs.10,000.00 and not for Rs.15,000.00. After a year the complainant was sent a notice of Rs.86,758.00 as proposed assessment amount on the ground that the cable was found cut before the meter, whereas the complainant had done nothing. Even though, the complainant was not found using direct connection from the cut, still the complainant was sent the aforesaid demand. On this complaint, the OP filed their WS wherein it was mentioned that the departmental officer made a checking report of the electricity connection of the complainant on 11.12.2005 where the cable was found cut and hence, there was possibility of electricity theft. It was also submitted that Rs.10,000.00 was deposited by the complainant as compounding fees and that demand notice for Rs.86,756.00 was sent to the complainant on the basis of assessment. The complainant's connection was a commercial one and the compounding fees was impossed as the complainant was found making theft of electricity. The case of electricity theft can not be dealt with in the Consumer Forum, therefore, this complaint should be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the Forum below passed the following order on 11.12.2012:-
"परिवादी का परिवाद विपक्षी के विरूद्व स्वीकार किया जाता है । राजस्व निर्धारण सम्बंधी नोटिस वास्ते अंकन 26933/-(3)
रूपया निरस्त किया जाता है। यह भी आदेश किया जाता है कि परिवादी द्वारा जमा की गई धनराशि 10000/- रूपया आगामी बिलों में समायोजित की जायेगी। इसके अतिरिक्त परिवादी विपक्षी से 2000/- रूपया वाद व्यय तथा 2000/- रूपया मानसिक क्षति पाने का अधिकारी होगा।
विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह मानसिक क्षति एवं वाद व्यय की धनराशि निर्णय के दिनांक के एक माह के अन्दर उपभोक्ता फोरम में चेक/ड्राफ़्ट द्वारा जमा करे।"
Feeling aggrieved with this judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred.
The main grounds of the appeal are that the matters pertaining to electricity theft can not be looked into and dealt with by the Consumer Forum. It is because the complainant was found making theft of electricity that is why he paid Rs.10,000.00 as compounding fees. Besides, the proposed assessment of Rs.86,208.00 was communicated to the respondent/complainant and if he had any grievance then he should have contacted the OP and should not have directly filed the case. Therefore, the order which has been passed by the ld. Forum is erroneous and should be set aside.
Now it is to be seen as to whether this case is of electricity theft or not and if so whether the Forum below was not empowered to deal with it and the consequences thereof.
It is vehemently argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that this case was of theft of electricity and hence, the complaint case in the Forum was not maintainable.
(4)From the records, it transpires that on checking of the meter the cable of the electricity connection was found cut before the meter as is evident from the checking report dated 11.12.2005 where the signature of the consumer are also appended there. On the basis of this electricity theft, a proposed assessment of Rs.86,208.00 was sent to the complainant and from these documents, it is clear that the respondent/complainant was found committing theft of electricity and accordingly, a proposed assessment was made and sent to him. In U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the cases of theft of electricity and consequent assessment can not be dealt with by the Consumer Forum. Therefore, this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid ruling and hence, the complaint was not maintainable because of it being a case of electricity theft. In this connection, the ld Forum has discussed the matter of electricity theft and on the basis of the report of Advocate Commissioner, concluded that theft of electricity as alleged was not committed and hence, the proposed assessment was wrongly done. But, we find that on the basis of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned above, it is not that the Consumer Fora have to get the electricity theft proved. The moment there is an allegation of commission of electricity theft by the consumer, Consumer Fora can not look into the fact of electricity theft committed or not but is barred from entertaining a case where the allegation of theft has been (5) made with prima-facie evidence in that regard. In this case, there is prima-facie evidence as discussed above, where the complainant was alleged to have committed theft of electricity and therefore, this case could not be dealt with by the Forum below. Consequently, the conclusion drawn by the ld. Forum in this regard is erroneous and in disregard of the dictate of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.
ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 11.12.2012, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Hathras in complaint case No.176 of 2006 is set aside. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Mahesh Chand) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II Court No.5 [HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Mahesh Chand] MEMBER