IMPORTANT POINT
Power theft is not a consumer dispute.

Anupam Dasgupta, Member—This revision petition challenges the order dated 21.11.2006 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1014 of 2006. By this order, the State Commission held, inter alia, that a dispute falling within the purview of section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (theft of electricity/dishonest abstraction of electrical energy) would also constitute a “consumer dispute” as defined in section 2(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that an inspection team of the petitioner’s visited the premises of the respondent/complainant on 26.10.2005 and found several irregularities, including broken plastic seal on the top of the meter body wire and broken hologram seal on the right hand side of the meter body, slow running of the meter by as much as 67.5%, insertion of two illegal resistances inside the meter body to manipulate the meter recordings of consumption of energy, etc. The spot inspection reports on the meter and the connected load were prepared and the signature of the respondent obtained. Show cause notice was also issued to the respondent directing him to file his reply by 27.11.2005. The respondent filed his reply to the notice on 17.11.2005. The Assessing Officer passed a speaking order making out a case of dishonest abstraction of energy (DAE) against the respondent and, in terms of the said order, the petitioner raised a supplementary bill for Rs. 31,371/- payable by the complainant by 16.12.2005. However, the complainant, instead of paying the bill, filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi (hereafter, ‘the District Forum’). The petitioner, on the other hand, filed a criminal complaint on 08.03.2006 against the complainant under sections 135 and 138 read with sections 150 and 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Special Court constituted under the said Electricity Act. The District Forum allowed the complaint and quashed the DAE bill, apart from giving some other directions to the petitioner. In appeal against this order, the State Commission passed the order noticed above.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent/complainant in person and considered the evidence and documents brought on record.

4. The facts of the case and the documents on record leave no room for doubt that this case involves, prima facie, both unauthorised as well as dishonest abstraction of electricity by the respondent. It is also seen that the petitioner, having noticed theft of electricity on inspection of the respondent’s premises in the presence of the respondent, initiated action under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the respondent availed of his rights under section 126 (3) of that Act in response by filing his reply to the show cause notice for additional demand. The petitioner also filed a criminal complaint in accordance with section 151 against the respondent before the competent Special Court.

5. Whether disputes regarding various aspects of supply of electrical energy would also fall within the purview of “consumer dispute” under the Act was considered at length by a three-Member Bench of this Commission, headed by the then President in a batch of revision petitions, led by the case of Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board v. Anwar Ali.1

(i) By its majority order dated 10.04.2008, this Commission held inter alia as under:

“V. (vi) Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to interfere with the initiation of criminal proceedings or the final order passed by any Special Court constituted under section 153 of the civil liability determined under section 154 of the Electricity Act”.

(ii) We may also notice in passing that even the dissenting order of one Member of the three-Member Bench held:

“The Consumer Fora established under the Consumer Pro