Complaints under the Consumer Protection Act for electrical energy theft are not maintainable, as established by the Supreme Court.

1. This revision is filed by the opposite parties in C.C. No. 107/2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod (District Forum for short). They challenge the order passed by the District Forum in I.A. No. 241/2019 holding that the complaint was maintainable before the District Forum. The said petition was filed by the opposite parties contending that the complaint itself was not maintainable before the District Forum in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the Regulations thereunder. As per the order under revision, the said petition has been dismissed holding that the complaint was maintainable. The aggrieved opposite parties are the revision petitioners.

2. The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Forum. Heresides in a rented building. On 5.4.2019 a search was conducted in his premises by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) of the Kerala State Electricity Board. It was detected that there was unauthorized connected load in the residential premises as well as unauthorized use of electrical energy. The allegation was that he was found to have been using electrical energy supplied for domestic use, for non - domestic purposes, thereby misutilizing the electrical energy supplied. A provisional assessment was therefore made under S.126 of the Electricity Act and a demand notice was issued for an amount of Rs. 60,471 as electricity charges due from him. It was challenging the said bill that the Consumer Complaint was filed by the respondent before the District Forum. I.A. No. 241/2019 was filed by the revision petitioners raising the question of maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum. According to them, since the allegation involved theft of electrical energy and action taken under S.126 of the Electricity Act, a petition under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) was not maintainable.

3. The District Forum considered the petition and found that, the respondent herein was a person coming under the definition of ˜consumer' under S.2(1)(d) of the Act. It is also found that, the definition of ˜consumer' under S.2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is different. Since the allegation in the complaint relates to deficiency in service on the part of the Kerala State Electricity Board, the complaint was held to be maintainable.

4. According to the learned Counsel Advocate N.G Mahesh who appears for the revision petitioners, the District Commission has placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court which are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Here action was taken for theft of electrical energy and therefore, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against such action. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Anis Ahmad, IX (2013) SLT 554: AIR 2013 SCC 2766, in support of his contention.

5. Heard. We have perused the Lower Court Records that were called for by us. We notice that, an inspection was conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) on 5.4.2019 and it was detected that a number of electrical appliances had been unauthorizedly connected in the residential building to which the supply of electrical energy was made for domestic use only. It was in the said circumstances that proceedings were initiated under S.126 of the Electricity Act.

6. The question as to whether a consumer of electricity against whom theft of electrical energy was alleged would come within the definition of ˜consumer' under the Act was considered by the Apex Court in the decision reported in 2013 (8) SC