State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mpeb vs Manishankar on 1 February, 2023
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 794 OF 2012 (Arising out of order dated 29.03.2012 passed in C. C. No.103/2010 by District Commission, Shajapur) 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. SHUJALPUR. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER EX-OFFICIO TEHSILDAR, M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. SHUJALPUR 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. SHUJALPUR 4. ADDITIONAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. SHUJALPUR ..... APPELLANTS Versus MANISHANKAR S/O SHRI RAMLAL NEMA, R/O PACHOR ROAD, OPPOSITE MPEB OFFICE, SHUJALPUR MANDI PARGANA, DISTRICT-SHAJAPUR (M.P.) .... RESPONDENT. BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel for the respondent. O R D E R (Passed on 01.02.2023)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:
The appeal is directed against the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, -2- Shajapur (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.103/2010 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had electricity connection number 26230 in his name. It is alleged that the reading in the bills received for the period November-2008 to November-2009 is normal, however the bills received for the period from December-2009 to June-2010 are of excessive reading and amount. The complainant was paying the bills regularly. On 19.11.2019, the vigilance team of the complainant inspected the premises and took out the meter. For the meter checking he was called to Indore and thereafter Ujjain where meter was checked on 08.04.2010 in his presence. The opposite party-electricity company raised a bill dated 05.08.2010 for a sum of Rs.9,992/- on the basis of sign of magnet on the meter. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission for quashing the disputed bill.
4. The opposite parties resisted the complaint stating that when the vigilance team of the opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant, it was found that there was scratch marks of magnet on the meter which was confirmed in meter testing. The panchnama was prepared a demand for a sum of Rs.9,992/- was raised. Since the case is related to theft of electricity which can be entertained only by the Special Court and -3- not by the District Commission as the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and quashed the demand for a sum of Rs.9,992/-. It is further directed that the amount of Rs.5000/- deposited by the complainant be returned or adjusted in future bills. Cost of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.
5. Heard. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties/appellants argued that the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint. The District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that during inspection by the vigilance team scratch marks of magnet were found on the meter which amounts to theft of electricity and the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding theft of electricity. The meter was checked in the laboratory in the presence of the complainant. The demand was raised under Section 126/135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Learned counsel further argued that her complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as per provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that though there were sign on the meter but it cannot be said to be of magnet and the complainant has committed -4- theft of electricity. The opposite parties had raised illegal demand. The District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint by quashing the demand raised by the opposite parties as theft of electricity was not proved.
8. As we carefully peruse the evidence available before us, we find that the complainant himself has admitted that on 19.11.2009 vigilance team of the opposite party-electricity company inspected the premises of the complainant and took out the meter as there were some signs on the meter. He was asked to remain present at the time of checking the meter and admitted that the meter was tested in his presence on 08.04.2010 and he signed the Meter Testing Report dated 08.04.2010 of Meter Testing Laboratory, (LTMT) Ujjain and there were scratch sign of the magent was found on the meter. Therefore on the basis of said meter testing report, provisional assessment order under Section 126/135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs. 9,992/- was issued to the complainant on the basis of average consumption.
9. Since the meter was tested in his presence and if he could not know the technology of meter checking, he could have raised the objection before signing the said report or he may approach for getting the meter checked by some independent authority or some expert but he failed to do so. He could have approach the higher authority.
-5-10. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant himself has admitted in his complaint that some signs are visible on the meter and he doubted that it must be of lizard (chipkali) or rats (chuha). In such circumstances, the meter testing report which was tested before him and he signed the same cannot be doubted. He has also signed the panchnama dated 19.11.2009 which was prepared in his presence. Thus the demand raised by the electricity company cannot be said to be illegal.
11. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors Vs Anis Ahmed III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC) in paragraph 47 of the order has clearly held:
(i)...
(ii) A 'complaint' against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 and against the offences committed under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is not maintainable before the Consumer Court.
12. Similar view has been taken by this Commission in First Appeal No. 798/2012 (Dilip Kumar Soni Vs Executive Engineer, M. P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited & Anr) decided on 12.07.2021.
13. It is an admitted fact that earlier the lineman of the opposite party also brought to the notice of the complainant that there were signs on the meter and since the complainant himself has admitted that there were scratch signs on the meter and on the basis of the meter testing report, which was signed by the complainant, we are of a considered opinion that -6- the demand raised by the electricity company cannot be said to be illegal. Even otherwise the dispute regarding demand raised under Section 126/135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act.
14. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
15. In the result, this appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr. Srikant Pandey) (D. K. Shrivastava) Presiding Member Member Member