Full Judgment
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.11.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.111/2010, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant / complainant, has been dismissed by the District Forum holding that the appellant/complainant, has failed to prove his case.
2. The facts of the complaint of the appellant/ complainant before the District Forum, are : that the appellant/complainant obtained one electric connection in his hospital and service no. is 100987458/3140563. On 17.10.2008 a vigilance team of the respondent/O.P. headed by the Assistant Engineer, inspected the premises of the appellant/complainant and prepared spot inspection report, (mauke ka naksha) etc. and mentioned that a magnet was attached with the service meter and made allegation under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, for using the electricity unauthorisedly. He also prepared seizure memo and in all the documents, it is mentioned by the vigilance team that all these documents were prepared in the presence of representative of the appellant/complainant, Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, and he refused to sign, those documents. Infact, the documents were not prepared by the vigilance team in the presence of Rajbahadur Singh and no magnet has been seized from the spot. The vigilance team shown total concerned load as 21,951 watt and sent penal bill of Rs.3,88,207/-, which is erroneous and much higher than the actual consumption. The appellant / complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent/O.P. under protest. The appellant / complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. Respondent/O.P. filed his written version before the District Forum and accepted the admitted facts and denied the remaining averments made by the appellant / complainant. The respondent/O.P. denied this fact that the electric bill of Rs.3,88,207/- which was provided to the appellant/complainant on 17.08.2010, is erroneous and much higher than the actual compensation. The respondent/O.P. averred that on 17.08.2010 Mr. T.K. Patel, Assistant Engineer inspected the premises of the appellant/complainant and found that in above the meter installed at the premises of the appellant/complainant, in a medicine packet a powerful magnet cover was affixed, due to which consumption of electricity was not recorded in the meter. This act of the appellant/complainant comes in the category of electricity theft. The total connected load was found 21,951 watt and therefore, a bill of Rs.3,88,207/- was sent to the by the respondent/O.P. to the appellant/complainant. The respondent /O.P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it, dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant.
5. Shri K. Anandani, learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant argued that order passed by the District Forum, is not sustainable.
6. Shri R.K.Bhawnani, learned counsel for respondent/O.P. argued that in 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 the complainant / respondent, is not maintainable before the District Forum, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsels for both parties and also perused the record of the District Forum and documents annexed with.
8. It is not disputed that electric service no. 1001894757 was in the name of the appellant/ complainant and according to the respondent / O.P. it was found during the inspection that total connected load found was 21,921 watt and therefore, penal bill was sent to the appellant/complainant for Rs.3,88,207/-. The appellant/complainant filed electricity bills and Spot Inspection Report (document A-1) dated 12.06.2009. In the Spot Inspection Report, in para 12 it is mentioned that "SEMS œHINDI? (Electronic) œHINDI? M.D. œHINDI?
9. After inspection, respondent company found that the appellant / complainant was using the electricity unauthorisedly and thereafter respondent company made final assessment and sent bill to the appellant / complainant. Office of the respondent /O.P. sent electricity bill to the tune of Rs.3,88,207/- to the appellant/complainant.
10. 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)].
11. Looking to the facts of the case, prima facie it appears that the act of indulgence in unauthorised use of the electricity by the appellant/complainant is made out and the appellant/complainant indulged himself in unauthorised use of the electricity.
12. 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.