C.E.S.C. Limited vs BABLOO SAHA

THIS is an appeal arising against the judgment passed by the District Forum, 24-Parganas (North), Barasat dated 20.3.2003. The case of the complainant in brief is stated hereunder.

THE complainant is a consumer of electrical energy under the O.P. As he refused to oblige the employees of the O.P. with illegal gratification, they disconnected the electric line of his premises on 20.12.2002 though he was never a defaulter in payment of any bill for electrical charges. THEreafter he filed a case before the Forum praying for direction upon the O.P. to restore the electric connection and cost. In its order the Forum allowing the case ex parte with cost assessed at Rs. 100/- and the O.P. was directed to restore the electric connection of the complainant within 10 days from the date of service of a copy of the order on the O.P., failing which, the complainant should be entitled to get damages at the rate of Rs. 5/- per day for the period of default. The O.P. was further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 300/- for illegal disconnection.

Being dissatisfied with the order the CESC-appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that during inspection by the L.C.C. people on 7.6.2001 the seal on the body of the respondent''s meter was found to be spurious and the respondent was consuming electricity dishonestly in violation of the Sections 39 and 40 of the I.E. Act and the line was disconnected. Accordingly on the same date the appellant duly lodged an FIR with the local P.S. After the said disconnection of the meter the reason of disconnection was duly communicated by a letter dated 7.7.2001 to the appellant. Bill was served upon the respondent for unmetered consumption amounting to Rs. 41,100/-. The present respondent again illegally reconnected the supply and the same was re-disconnected on 14.12.2002 by the L.C.C. Cell. Thereafter, further assessment was made for unmetered consumption amounting to Rs. 55,755/-. By issuing a letter dated 14.12.2002 the consumer was intimated the total demand of Rs. 1,10,489.35 being the amount assessed for pilferage of electricity and the respondent was further asked to pay such charges for unmetered consumption in addition to additional security deposit. The respondent is also liable to pay the reconnection charges as per the I.E. Act. It is submitted by the appellant that it is well settled that the Fora have no power to invoke jurisdiction in a case of theft of electrical energy and the instant matter cannot be decided under COPRA. The learned Counsel for the appellant prays for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below as it is erroneous and unjust.

ON careful perusal of the records we notice that it is a case of theft of electrical energy and it was detected on 7.6.2001 by the C.E.S.C. people on a surprise visit to the premises of the respondent. The representatives of Loss Control Cell of the respondent found that the meter was tampered with and the electric energy was consumed by the respondent illegally and hence the line was disconnected by the appellant. We find that after the theft was detected an FIR was lodged with the local Police Station to that effect and a letter was given to the respondent demanding payment for unmetered consumption, additional security deposit and reconnection charges. The appellant submits in support of its contention that no notice is required to be given in case of pilferage, that according to the Clauses 28 and 29 of the "Conditions of Supply", which state that in case of theft of electrical energy or any malpractice by the consumer no notice of disconnection is required to be given. In this context the appellant refers to a judgment reported in III (1997) CPJ 116 (NC)=1997 (2) CPR 92 (NC), passing an order dated 9.5.1997, in a matter of C.E.S.C. v. Sumita Paul. It was held that when the electricity department detects that any consumer had committed any malpractice with reference to his use of electric energy, the company may disconnect the supply of electricity without any prior notice. The exercise of the power of disconnection in case of pilferage is in accordance with the statutory power and cannot be construed as any deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Corporation/Board so as to warrant the grant of any relief to the consumer in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. We are also to be governed by the dictates of the Hon''ble Supreme Court II (1996) CLT 366 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 2258, in M.P. Electricity Board v. Harse Wood Products, that ''before disconnection no prior notice is required in a case of theft of electrical energy''. We know that in the case of pilferage the settled principle is that the consumer has to pay the entire amount of the unmetered consumption. In the present case the respondent-consumer is liable to pay the entire amount as claimed by the appellant-C.E.S.C. We find much substance in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and hence it is ordered that if the respondent is interested to get reconnection of the electric line he has to pay the entire amount of the bill as claimed by the appellant as unmetered consumption as well as the additional security deposit. We are of the opinion that the Forum has erred in allowing the complaint. It will be open to the respondent to approach the C.E.S.C. Ltd. and to make payment against the additional demands for the electricity consumed and to pay reconnection charges as also additional security deposit if any and obtain reconnection. On the facts and circumstances we pass no order as to costs. Therefore, the appeal is allowed on contest and the judgment of the Forum below is set aside. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed.