Consumer Commissions lack subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate or review statutory actions initiated by electricity authorities under the Electricity Act, 2003, such as proceedings regarding theft of energy, as these fall outside the scope of deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act.

********

ORDER: PER HON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, (NON-JUDICIAL)

01) This appeal is filed u/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Appellant/Complainant praying this Commission to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy passed in C.C.No.177/2024, dated 04.04.2024 and to eventually allow the complaint as prayed for and pass such other orders or relief deems fit and proper.

02) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as complainant and opposite parties as arrayed in the original complaint.

03) Briefly stated facts of the case of the complainant are that, the complainant is the owner of Villa Plot No.193, Villa Orchids, situated at Yapral village, Kowkoor village and is having the Electricity Connection vide SC No.230303321 of Domestic category, that she has let out her villa on rent to One Smt. Ameena vide Agreement dated 20.12.2020 and she has been residing in the said villa as a tenant from that date and has been regularly using and paying the electricity bills. While so on 09.03.2020, the opposite party No.1 had issued a Provisional Assessment Notice for the theft of electricity stating that the premises of the complainant was inspected on 19.01.2022 at 13:00 hours by P. Madhavi, ADE SD-1, DPE RR East and found that the seals are tampered and demanded to pay an amount of Rs.60,446/-pending determination of the Civil liability by the appropriate Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Electricity connection was disconnected by the opposite parties.

The opposite parties also registered a Criminal Complaint for theft of energy against the complainant/owner of the villa in the vigilance and APTS Team Habsiguda, APTS Police Station and further informed that if a sum of Rs.5,000/- is paid towards compounding as the first offence, the Criminal case would be closed as per Section 154 of IE Act. Upon which, the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compounding of the offence on 24.03.2022 and also paid 50% out of the demanded amount of Rs.60,446/-. Subsequently, the complainant had filed an appeal dated 16.04.2022 before the Divisional Engineer i.e., opposite party No.2 on the ground that, as the villa has been let out, the complainant is not responsible for the alleged theft of electricity by her tenant. Further stating that the theft on electricity was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities through their own employee only after the tenant had vacated the premises which gives rise to a doubt that the employee had been in collusion with the tenant and had reported the same only after the tenant has vacated the premises. As the opposite parties failed to register the appeal filed by the complainant, upon which another letter dated 17.06.2022 and also on 27.06.2022 were addressed to Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nagpur Zone and requested to pass appropriate orders and also to refund the money as the opposite parties failed to respond to the said letters.

The complainant had approached the Ombudsman of Southern Power Distribution Company, Telangana with a complaint. However, the Ombudsman had also returned the said application on 28.04.2023 with a request to approach the proper Forum which is CGRF-II. Upon which, the complainant had submitted an application on 03.05.2023 to CGRF-II, TSSPDCL with a request to withdraw both Civil and Criminal actions initiated against her and she has already submitted the particulars of the tenant and requested to proceed against the tenant and refund the amount paid by her, but the said application was returned by CGRF stating that the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and finalize the grievance, as the same falls under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003.

Upon which, the complainant had ap