R.S. Sharma, President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.54/2011, whereby the complaint, has been allowed by the District Forum and the learned District Forum, has directed the appellant/O.P. (i) to send electricity bill for the month of November, 2010 and January, 2011 on the basis of correct consumption, to which the respondents/complainants are responsible to pay (ii) the connection which was disconnected was to be reinstated/connected immediately after making payment by the respondents/complainants (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondents/complainants.
2. The facts of the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants before the District Forum, are : that the respondents/complainants obtained one domestic electric connection in their house from the appellant/O.P. and service no. is 1001272256/33490974-04-1600. The respondents/complainants are consumer of the appellant/O.P. The respondents/complainants were regularly paying the bills sent by the appellant/O.P. In the month of September, 2010 a bill of Rs.4,300/- was sent to the respondents/complainants which was paid on 23.10.2010. In the month of October, 2010 a bill of Rs.30/- was sent which was paid on 22.11.2010, thereafter in the month of November, 2010 a bill of sum of Rs.74,460/- was sent in which consumption of units was mentioned as 21622 units, but in any condition it was not possible to consume the electricity units, which was mentioned in the said electricity bill. The appellant/O.P. sent the said electricity bill without taking reading and without mentioning consumption. On 30.12.2010, the respondents/complainants went to the office of the appellant/O.P. and made complaint in this regard and requested test the meter, but the appellant/O.P. had not taken any action. The complainant had not made the payment of bill of Rs.74,460/-, which was issued for the month of November. The appellant/O.P. sent bill of Rs.82,580/- to the complainant for the month of January, 2011. The respondent/complainants contacted on 30.12.2010 with the appellant/O.P. with the written complaint made by them and acknowledgement, but the appellant/O.P. misbehaved the respondents/complainants and told to pay a sum of Rs.86,000/- and thereafter only test of meter would be conducted and if any mistake is found, then its adjustment, would be made in future bills. The respondents/complainants requested the appellant/O.P. to test the meter, but the appellant/O.P. misbehaved them and ad taken back the meter. The respondents/complainants orally made request to the appellant/O.P. many times. The appellant/O.P. had not given the information sought by the respondents/complainants under Right to Information Act. On 10.03.2011 the respondents/complainants sent notice to the appellant/O.P. through Advocate, in which prayer was made to issue revised electricity bill and to reconnect the electricity connection, but the appellant/O.P. had not taken any action. The respondents/complainants filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. The appellant/O.P. filed written version before the District Forum and averred that the bill of Rs.4,300/- which issued for the month of September, 2010 was paid in the month of October, 2010. In the month of November, 2010 a bill of Rs.74,460/- was issued to the complainant. The said bill was issued to the complainant on the basis of consumption of 21122 units of electricity. In the month of January, 2011, a bill of Rs.82,250/- was issued. Neither the complainant had requested to correct the bill nor the appellant/O.P. misbehaved the complainant nor the complainant was told that test of the meter would be conducted after making payment of Rs.86,000/-. Neither the complainant was misbehaved by the appellant/O.P. nor the complainant was sent outside from the office of the appellant/O.P. The electricity connection was disconnected because some amount was outstanding against the respondents/complainants. For checking of the meter installed at the residence of the respondents/ complainants, another checked meter was installed and on 30.12.2010 electricity connection was not disconnected. The appellant/O.P. provided the documents on 22.03.2011 which was sought by the respondents/complainants under Right to Information Act. The bill of Rs.74,460/- was sent to the respondents/complainant after taking meter reading. The respondents/complainants are not entitled for getting any compensation. The complaint be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties allowed the complaint and awarded compensation in favour of the respondents/complainants, as mentioned in para no.1 of this order.
5. During the pendency of this appeal, the original complainant Hariram Patel has died and thereafter the respondent nos.1(a) to 1(d) being the Legal Heirs of the deceased Hariram Patel, have been brought on record as respondents.
6. Both the parties have filed their written submission and also argued the case.
7. Shri Alok Bakshi, earned counsel appearing for appellant/O.P. argued that the respondents/complainants obtained electricity connection for domestic use. Office of the appellant/O.P. issued bill to the respondents/complainant for Rs.30/- only for the month of October, 2010 which was paid by them, therefore, bill of Rs.74,460/- for the month of November, 2010 was issued on the basis of the consumption of electricity shown i.e. 21122 units, but they did not pay the same and thereafter another bill of Rs.82,500/- was issued for the month of January, 2011. The electricity bill of Rs.74,460/- was sent to the respondents/complainants on the basis of actual consumption of electricity by them. Shri Alok Bakshi further argued that Vigilance Team of the appellant/O.P. inspected the premises of the respondents/complainants, and during inspection, it was found that the respondents/complainants were supplying the electricity to some other house from their electricity connection and they indulged themselves in unauthorized use of electricity. Shri Alok Bakshi further argued that use because respondents/complainants themselves were supplying the electricity to some other house from their electricity connection unauthorizedly, therefore, the case of respondents/complainants comes within the purview of theft of electricity and use of the electricity unauthorizedly, therefore, the view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed, III (2013) CPJ (SC) 1, the complaint of respondents/complainants, is not maintainable before the District Forum, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. Shri Prafulla Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/complainants has supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant/O.P.
9. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. It is not disputed that electric service no.1001272256/33490974-04-160 was in the name of Hariram Patel, and according to the appellant /O.P. that the connection was disconnected in the month of March, 2011 because some amount was due against Hariram Patel.
11. The appellant/O.P. filed documents. Document Annexure 1 letter dated 12.12.2011 sent by the Assistant Engineer, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Raigarh (Rural) to the Executive Engineer, Division - 1, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Raigarh, Annexure “ 2 is Spot Inspection Report dated 19.10.2010, Annexure 3 is billing detail, Annexure “ 4 is electricity bill issued to Hariram Patel, for the month of March, 2011, Annexure “ 5 is Inspection Report regarding Electricity Connection.
12. Document Annexure “ 1, which is letter dated 12.12.2011 sent by the Assistant Engineer, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Raigarh (Rural) to the Executive Engineer, Division “ 1, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Raigarh, in which it is mentioned in para 4 that œHINDI? 4 œHINDI? 30-12-2010 œHINDI? 31-12-2010
13. Document Annexure 5 is Inspection Report regarding Electricity Connection. In the said document it is mentioned that during inspection it is found that due to non-payment of electricity charges, service connection of the complainant was disconnected by the appellant/O.P. but during inspection it is found that the respondents/complainants had unauthorizedly reconnected connection without giving intimation and without obtaining permission of the competent authority of the appellant/O.P. It appears that the respondents/complainants obtained electricity connection unauthorizedly.
14. After inspection, the appellant/O.P. found that the that the respondents/complainants had unauthorizedly reconnected the connection and were using the electricity unauthorisedly and thereafter appellant/O.P. made final assessment and sent bill to the respondents/complainants.
15. In U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus :-
"45. The National Commission though held that the intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and have saved the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, failed to notice that by virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections 173, 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Consumer Forum cannot 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, as the acts of indulging ""unauthorized use of electricity" as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Section 135 to 140 do not fall within the meaning of "complaint" as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
46. The acts of indulgence in "unauthorized use of electricity" by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 neither has any relationship with unfair trade practice" or "restrictive trade practice" or "deficiency in service" nor does it amounts to hazardous service by the licensee. Such act of "unauthorized use of electricity" has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in 'unauthorized use of electricity', do not fall within the meaning of "complaint" as we have notice above and therefore, the "complaint" against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum."[See also Uttar Haryana Bijli VitranNigam Ltd. v. Om Prakash, IV (2013) CPJ 571 (NC); and DHBVNL v. Abhay Kumar Jain, IV (2013) CPJ 599 (NC)].
16. Looking to the facts of the case, prima facie it appears that the act of indulgence in unauthorised use of the electricity by the respondents / complainants, is made out and the respondents/complainants indulged themselves in unauthorised use of the electricity.
17. In view of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed (Supra), the complaint filed in the present case before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable. Accordingly, without going into merits of the appeal, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant / O.P. and dismiss the consumer complaint with liberty to the respondents/complainants to seek appropriate remedy available to them before other appropriate Forum. No order as to cost of this appeal.