Judgment:
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 13/4/2007 passed in consumer complaint no.216/2006 Mrs.Zamirunissa D.Khan v/s. Reliance Energy Ltd. and another passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum.
2. Respondent/original complainant is a consumer of appellant O.P.no.1 M/s.Reliance Energy Ltd. She was charged excess for energy consumption for the year 2000. She was out of station during the period February 2004 to April 2004. In the month of November 2004, she let out the shop to Krishna Cleaners. Appellant/O.P.no.1 charged her Rs.74,400/- for energy consumption claiming that the meter was tampered and there was theft of electricity and then the electric supply was disconnected. Consumer complaint is therefore filed for claiming refund of excess payment towards energy consumption charges made in the year 2000 with interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for harassment and mental agony and further claiming Rs.7000/- as cost.
3. Forum below found a fault only with and related with making provisional assessment for a period more than 3 months prior to 31/12/2004 and partly allowed the complaint accordingly with award of Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby O.P.nos.1 and 2 Reliance Energy Ltd. preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Mr.P.R.Hegde-Advocate for the appellant. Respondent though served remained absent. Perused the record.
5. From the averments made in the complaint itself and which also emerges from the undisputed facts that the complainant Mrs.Zamirunissa D.Khan had let out the premises to Krishna Cleaners obviously for the business purpose. Thus, the energy is not consumed for domestic purpose. Under the circumstances, inference drawn by the Forum below that the assessment cannot be made for more than 3 months is per se illegal and improper.
6. Further it is the case of theft of electricity detected by the Vigilance branch of O.Ps. The civil liability was accordingly fixed as per the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Hence grievance, if any, about charging in excess is about fixing the civil liability and which correlated with further criminal action/trial/ prosecution. If such amount as determined and fixed for civil liability is not paid by way of composition of the offence, it would result in initiation of criminal action. Therefore no consumer complaint would lie in these circumstances as observed by Honble National Commission in the matter of Accounts officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Assistant Electricity Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Kokar division V/s. Anwar Ali, Proprietor, Pinki Plastic Industrial Area, and Executive Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board and Deputy Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board v/s.Madresa Abriyah Talimul Muslin Min (decided on 10/4/2008) : MANU/CF/0044/2008.
7. For the reasons stated above, we find impugned order/award being bad in law will not stand in the eyes of law and, hence, we hold accordingly and pass following order:-
Order:
1. Appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.1000/-.
2. Impugned order/award dated 13/4/2007 is set aside and in effect the consumer complaint stands dismissed.
3. Misc. application for stay stands disposed of.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.