State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. vs Khalil Ahmed on 30 June, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 211 / 2013
1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited
through its Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division (Urban)
Roorkee
2. Executive Engineer (Urban), Electricity Distribution Division
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited
Roorkee
......Appellants
Versus
1. Sh. Khalil Ahmed S/o Sh. Ibrahim (now deceased)
R/o Rampur Road, Old Tehsil
Roorkee
1/1. Sh. Shamim Ahmed S/o late Sh. Khalil Ahmed
R/o 549, Rampur Road
Old Tehsil, Roorkee
District Haridwar
......Respondents
Sh. S.M. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Shreegopal Narsan, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/1
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 29/06/2017
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 162 of 2012.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the complainant has opened a shop for the purposes of earning his 2 livelihood and for which, he has taken an electricity connection No. 020742 from the electricity department and he has been depositing the electricity bills in time. At the time of taking the electricity connection, the electricity load was 2 kilowatt. However, on 02.01.2009, new electricity meter was installed and the electricity load was got increased to 4 kilowatt. On 16.12.2011, the officials of the electricity department visited the house of the complainant and removed the old electricity meter on the pretext that the seal of the same is doubtful and in place of old electricity meter, new electricity meter was affixed outside the house of the complainant. The complainant received a letter dated 25.02.2012 from the electricity department, wherein it was stated that on inspection, the electricity meter was found tampered with and, as such, the same has been sealed. However, the said fact was not mentioned in the sealing report dated 16.12.2011. The electricity department issued a bill dated 15.05.2012 to the complainant for sum of Rs. 1,25,445/- without any basis. The complainant approached the electricity department for cancellation of the said bill, but to no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the electricity department, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The electricity department filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on 16.12.2011, raid was conducted at the premises of the complainant on the basis of doubt of theft of electricity; that the electricity meter was removed from service connection and was sealed; that the Central Test Branch, Dehradun has found unusual soldering in PCB and all the seals were found tampered with; that since the complainant was making theft of electricity and, as such, he does not fall under the definition of "consumer"; that in the sealing report, it is clearly written that the old meter has been found tampered; that the sealing report has been 3 signed by the complainant; that provisional assessment has been made and a bill for sum of Rs. 1,25,445/- was rightly sent to the complainant and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum after perusal of the evidence on record allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 12.07.2013 and quashed the electricity bill of Rs. 1,25,445/- issued by the electricity department against the complainant and the electricity department was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the electricity department has filed the present appeal.
5. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 1 - complainant Sh. Khalil Ahmed had expired on 21.09.2016 and, as such, his legal heir was substituted as respondent No. 1/1 in the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 1/1 and gone through the record.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the electricity meter in question was checked by the officials of the electricity department and on the basis of the said checking, provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was made against the complainant vide letter dated 13.03.2012 (Paper Nos. 13 to
14). The inspection report dated 27.02.2012 (Paper No. 15) shows that upon inspection made on 16.12.2011, unusual soldering was found in PCB and all the seals of the meter were found tampered and the pressure voltage wire was also found broken and the meter was sealed. The sealing report bears the signatures of the complainant. The complainant did not file any objections against the assessment made. It is also worth to mention here that the Central Test Branch, 4 Dehradun has found unusual soldering in PCB and all the seals were found tampered. Thus, it can safely be said that the complainant was making theft of electrical energy. The correctness of the assessment could be adjudicated only by the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Anis Ahmad; AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2766 = III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC), has clearly held that a complaint against the assessment made by the assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. It was further held that the Consumer Forum can not derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as the acts of indulging in "unauthorized use of electricity" as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Sections 135 to 140 do not fall within the meaning of "complaint" as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant against the assessment made and demand notice issued against the complainant for making unauthorized use of electricity was not at all maintainable before the District Forum and the District Forum has erred in entertaining the consumer complaint and deciding it on merit by the order impugned, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal is fit to be allowed.
9. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 12.07.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 162 of 5 2012 is dismissed. The statutory amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal, be released in their favour. However, the respondent No. 1/1 would be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum against the assessment made by the electricity department. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K