The main legal point established in the judgment is that actions constituting unauthorized use of electricity are governed by Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and complaints related to such matters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member - This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 10.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was using electricity connection bearing account No. Y62GC620030M, installed in the name of Harbans Singh S/o Amar Singh, from whom he purchased the property in 1995. The opposite parties conducted a checking on 26.8.2008 and levelled allegations of theft of energy against him, and thereafter issued letter dated 27.8.2008 demanding Rs. 88,873. The complainant visited the office of the opposite parties, who threatened that if he failed to deposit this amount, his connection would be disconnected. Thereafter, he deposited Rs. 20,000 through cheque with the opposite parties. The demand of the opposite parties was illegal as no details of the amount claimed were given. Even no notice was served upon him regarding the alleged checking. Thus, he filed the complaint before the District Forum challenging the aforesaid demand.

3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed written reply in which they averred that a team comprising of Assistant Executive Engineer, Gurtej Singh, JE and Gurdev Singh Foreman inspected the connection of the complainant on 26.8.2008 in his presence and found that he was controlling the consumption by the meter by placing magnet on the counter of the meter. Magnet was taken into possession. Inspection report was prepared on the spot but the complainant refused to sign the same. On the basis of this checking report the impugned demand was raised, out of which Rs. 20,000 were deposited by the complainant willingly. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

4. After having gone through the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective averments and hearing learned Counsel on their behalf, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.

5. We have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6. According to Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he is required to provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person. As per the explanation appended to that section, unauthorized use of electricity means the usage of electricity:

"(i) by any artificial means; or

(ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or

(iii) through a tampered meter; or

(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or

(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised."

7. It is the specific averment of the opposite parties that connection of the complainant was checked on 26.8.2008 and it was found that he was controlling the consumption of his meter by placing magnet on the counter of the meter, which was not an authorised use of electricity. Thereafter, the impugned demand was raised. That clearly shows that the opposite parties proceeded under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for making the assessment.

8. It has recently been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Anis Ahmad, III (2013) CLT 55 (SC)=2013 (13) CON.LT 226, that the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 run parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"