Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Rakesh Saksena, President and Smt. Neerja Singh, Member
M.P. MADHYA KSHETRA VIDHYUT VATARAN CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
MUKESH KUSHWAHA - Respondent
First Appeal No. 2139 of 2012
Decided on : 21-07-2016
Ms. Sapna Aggarwal, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant; Shri Hemant Sharma, Learned Counsel, for the Respondent
The jurisdiction of civil court or consumer forum in challenging the assessment order under section 126 of the Electricity Act is limited, and the complainant should approach the appellate authority for redressal.
Headnote:
Electricity Act - Unauthorized Use of Electricity - Section 126, Section 127
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an electricity company, sent a bill to the respondent for unauthorized use of electricity. The respondent alleged that the assessment order was based on a fake panchanama and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The District Forum allowed the complaint, but the appellant appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Forum wrongly usurped the jurisdiction of the assessing authorities established under the provisions of section 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act by entertaining the complaint as a consumer dispute.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint challenging the provisional assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 126 of the Electricity Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant could challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority only and was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of civil court or consumer forum.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order passed by the District Forum was set-aside, and the complaint was dismissed.
ORDER
Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena, President—Appellant/opposite party has filed this appeal against the order dated 13.9.2012 passed by District Forum, Gwalior in CC No. 58/2012 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant has been allowed.
2. Facts of the case are that respondent holds a domestic electricity connection No. 39425101 16 10 328670. On 2.1.2012 appellant/Electricity Company sent a bill of Rs. 30384/- to him. On his enquiry he came to know that the appellant/company had done a checking of his meter on 23.5.2011 and had drawn a panchanama, on the basis of which a provisional assessment order was passed on 11.7.2011. The copy of the panchanama was though not supplied to him, but the copy of the order along with the billing sheet was supplied to him on 16.1.2012. According to complainant the alleged panchanama was fake and was concocted with an ulterior motive for illegal recovery from him making false allegation of tampering of seals of the meter body. This was done without issuing any notice to him therefore the act of appellant amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practise. Aggrieved by the conduct of Company, complainant approached to District Forum.
3. The appellant/Company stated that on checking of the domestic connection of complainant, body seals of the meter were found tampered, and the load on the connection was also more than sanctioned watts. A panchanama, R/4, was drawn in that regard. Since the action by the appellant was taken under section 126 of the Electricity Act, the complaint before the Forum was not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the District Forum and submitted that since it was not proved that any notice of the inspection was given to the complainant, and that no inspection report of the meter was filed in the Forum, it was not established that the meter was inspected and its body seals were tampered. Therefore, the facts considered for passing the provisional assessment order were not correct. Counsel submitted that since no complaint or prosecution has been filed in the Court alleging theft of electricity, the Forum was justified in entertaining the complaint.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Forum, in view of the fact that no inspection report was produced before the Forum held that the act of appellant/Company fell within ambit of deficiency in service and also unfair trade practise. The Forum allowed the complaint, cancelled the billing done by the opposite parties and quashed the provisional assessment order dated 11.7.2011, and also directed appellant/Company to issue amended bill. A cost of Rs. 1200/- was also imposed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order appellant/opposite party has filed this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned order passed by the District Forum is illegal, incorrect and against the law. Since provisional assessment order was passed under section 126 of the Electricity Act, the complainant could have filed objections against the same before the Assessing Officer. In case he was not satisfied by the order passed by the Assessing Officer he could have approached to Appellate Authority under section 127 of the said Act. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the provisions of section 145, the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint challenging the order passed by Assessing Officer.
8. The pivotal question to be answered is whether the District Forum was justified in entertaining the complaint challenging the provisional assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 126 of the Electricity Act. It would be apposite to advert to the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 in respect of the provisional assessment by the Assessing Officer in respect to the unauthorized use of electricity.
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003
"126.Assessment.-(1) If on an inspection of any place or premis
