R.S. Sharma, President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.05.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum) in Complaint Case No.415/2010, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant, has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum are : that the appellant/complainant is owner of Stone Crusher and he obtained Low Tension Electric Connection with Service No.470002/1000467748 from the respondents. On 01.09.2010 respondent No.3 sent a letter No.1055/2008-09 dated 06.08.2010 along with four additional bills amounting to Rs.480/-, Rs.12,894/-, Rs.11,042/- and Rs.5,799/- respectively to the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant on 03.09.2010 sent a letter of objection to the respondent no.3 and demanded calculation sheet and audit report and basis of the issuance of above bills. Respondent no.3 sent letter dated 08.09.2010 to the appellant/complainant along with copy of audit report, but the audit report did not disclose any substantial reason for issuance of above bills and respondents/OPs did not supply any calculation sheet to the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. The respondents/OPs filed their written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations levelled by the appellant/complainant and averred that the appellant/complainant made party to respondent nos.2 and 3 by their designation, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. They further averred that the bills were sent to the appellant/complainant as per rules. The appellant/complainant was using electricity from August, 2009 to January, 2010 for 42.522 whereas the sanctioned load was 37.3 k.w. and he consumed total 29870 units. On that basis the bills were prepared and sent to the appellant/complainant. The bill of Rs.11,042/- was issued for the period from August, 2009 to January, 2010, the second bill of Rs.5,799/- was issued for the period from April, 2008 to October, 2008, the third bill of Rs.12,894/- was issued for the period from November, 2007 to April, 2008 and fourth bill of Rs.480/- was issued for the period from December, 2007 to November, 2009. The respondents issued aforesaid bills according to the electricity consumed by the appellant/complainant and respondents did not commit any deficiency in service. Thus, the complaint of the appellant/complainant is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum, after appreciation of material available before it, dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
5. Shri Pradeep Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the order dated 21.05.2012, passed by the District Forum, is illegal and is liable to be dismissed. He further argued that the bills issued by the respondents are in addition to the regular bills and due to fault of respondents, the bills in questions, were issued by the respondents to the appellant/complainant and most of the bills are time barred and according to the Clause 10.19 of Chhattisgarh Electricity Supply Code, 2005, the arrears are only recoverable within two years when the bill was due for the first time. Therefore, the bills issued by the respondents are time barred, hence the respondents are not entitled to recover the amount of said bills and learned District Forum did not appreciate the above facts and has wrongly dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant.
6. Shri V.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
7. We have heard counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
8. The appellant / complainant has filed documents i.e. bill issued by respondents for Rs.11,042/-, bill issued by respondents for Rs.5,799/-, bill issued by respondents for Rs.480/-, bill issued by respondents for Rs.12,894/-, letters dated 03.09.2010 sent by the appellant/complainant to the Assistant Engineer, C.G. Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Raipur (C.G.) and audit report for the year 2008-09 of Santosh Kumar Jain, Chartered Accountant.
9. We have perused the written version of the respondents.
10. In additional statement (a) it is mentioned that the first bill no.7299 dated 09.09.2010 for Rs.11,042/- was issued for the period from August, 2009 to January, 2010 as the appellant/complainant was using more electricity than the sanctioned load, the second bill for Rs.5,799/- was issued for the period from April, 2008 to October, 2008. In the said para it is mentioned that third bill of Rs.12,984/- was for the period from November, 2007 to April, 2008, and fourth bill for Rs.480/- was issued for the period from December, 2007 to November, 2009.
11. It is not disputed that first bill for Rs.11,042/- was issued for the period from August, 2009 to January, 2010, second bill for Rs.5,799/- was issued for the period from April, 2008 to October, 2008, third bill for Rs.12,894/- was issued for the period from November, 2007 to April, 2008 and fourth bill for Rs.480/- was issued for the period from December, 2007 to November, 2009. Letters were sent to the appellant/complainant on 26.08.2010 for payment of the additional bills. In bill no.7299 it is mentioned that Meter Rent 2008-09 para 5 and capacitor surcharge “ additional bill. In all the bills same contents were mentioned. In the written statement, the respondents tried to explain regarding the bill when it was due. Looking to the bills, it appear that all bills are relating to year 2008-09.
12. In the audit report, it is mentioned that œduring the physical verification of Abhay Athwani Power Consumer has taking connection for the purpose of bricks manufacturing but actually used for Mining hence the electricity duty should be charged @ 40% instead of @ 3% of Rs.2,66,498.00.?
13. In the instant appeal, œHINDI? and Spot Inspection Report, have been filed by the respondents/OPs. In the Spot Inspection Report dated 09.02.2010, it is mentioned that :-
"12. HINDI"
14. Looking to the above documents, it appears that the appellant/complainant was indulged in unauthorized use of the electricity for the mining purpose.
15. In U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed, III (2013) CPJ (SC) 1, 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. 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 dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant / complainant and dismiss the consumer complaint with liberty to the appellant/complainant to seek appropriate remedy available to him before other appropriate Forum. No order as to cost of this appeal.