(Order)
R.S. Sharma, President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.10.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.CC/09/64, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been dismissed on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation and the complainant does not come in the category of consumer. Feeling aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been filed by the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Forum in brief are that the complainant Koushalya Fatnani is resident of near Ram Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Raipur and she was having a Grinding Unit namely Vinayak Pisai Udyog at Shanti Nagar, Raipur. She had obtained electric connection bearing No.143151 for running that Unit from the OP Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (henceforth called "Electricity Board") and a meter was installed. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum, was that the Electricity Board was issuing excessive bills and the consumption was not, as shown in such bills. Complaint was also lodged in the year 2003 with the Electricity Board, but no heed was paid. Ultimately, the Grinding Unit was to be closed in the year 2006 and the connection was removed by the Electricity Board. The meter was also taken back on 02.06.2006. Thereafter on 27.06.2008, an application was moved by the complainant for testing of that meter, but no such testing was conducted by OP and no relief was provided to the complainant, so complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.
3. The OP in reply, has described in detail, as to how the consumption of electricity was shown less by reversing electric meter up to some extent. It has also been objected that the Electricity Board has been bifurcated into few independent Companies and at the time of filing the complaint the work of supply of energy was to be done by Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. It has also been averred that no complaint was filed by the complainant with the period of limitation and the complaint, which was filed before the District Forum was barred by limitation. It has also been averred that it is a case of electricity theft and in view of this fact, no relief can be granted by the District Forum treating the complainant as a 'consumer'.
4. After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, the complaint of the complainant, has been dismissed on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation and the complainant does not come in the category of consumer.
5. Shri Shankarlal Phatnani, Power of Attorney Holder of the appellant/complainant argued that the complaint filed by the complainant is within prescribed period and learned District Forum, erroneously held that the complaint is barred by time, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum, is not sustainable in eye of law and is liable to be set aside.
6. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the respondent/O.P. supported the impugned order.
7. We have heard both parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
8. The OP / respondent specifically averred that the appellant / complainant cannot come within the category of consumer and the appellant / complainant was indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, as defined in the Electricity Act, therefore, the Consumer Forum, cannot derive power to adjudicate dispute in hand.
9. Earlier before this Commission the complainant/appellant has filed appeal No.513/2009. The respondent/O.P. also filed appeal no.537/2009 before this Commission. The appeal of the complainant/appellant was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 04.03.2010 and had again remitted back the case to District Forum with a direction that necessary party i.e. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited be made a party in the case first. Opportunity be provided to such newly added party of raising all necessary objections. Objections regarding limitation, regarding electricity theft and maintainability of the complaint and regarding non-implication of necessary party, be also considered and proper finding be recorded on all such objections and then matter be decided afresh on merits. Thereafter learned District Forum vide order dated 20.07.2010 dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the ground that complaint is barred by time. Then again the complainant filed appeal no.505/2010 before this Commission. Vide order dated 07.12.2010, this Commission has allowed the appeal and the case was again remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to provide an opportunity to the complainant / appellant for filing application for condonation of delay in filing complaint before the District Forum. Thereafter, the District Forum, vide order dated 24.03.2011 dismissed the complaint and held that the complaint was time barred and complainant / appellant again filed appeal no. 218/2011, vide order dated 05.07.2011, the appeal was allowed and the case was again remanded back. Thereafter, the District Forum again passed impugned order dated 13.10.2011 and dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the ground that complainant has not filed application under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for condonation of delay in filing complaint and the complaint is time barred, hence this appeal.
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. In view of the judgment 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 of the appellant/complainant and 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.