C.E.S.C. Limited vs MD. NIZAMUDDIN

THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I, on 28.12.2001, where the Forum directed the O.P. to restore the electric connection of the complainant within three days without charging the amount of unmetered consumption of Rs. 38,263.08.

THE facts of the case in a nutshell are stated here. THE electric line of the complainant was disconnected by the O.P. on 20.7.2001 on the charge of alleged pilferage of electricity. THE O.P. assessed unmetered consumption of electricity at Rs. 29,700/-. Being aggrieved with the said order the C.E.S.C. Ltd.-appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case of pilferage of electrical energy by the respondent. The pilferage was detected on 20.7.2001 during surprise inspection. It was noticed that the seal on the meter box was spurious and electric energy was dishonestly abstracted in violation of several provisions of the Indian Electricity Act as well as the rules framed thereunder by the appellant. On detection of this illegal drawal of electric energy by the appellant, the line was disconnected. An FIR was lodged with the local police station on the same date. According to the appellant the respondent is required to pay for the unmetered consumption of energy, a sum of Rs. 29,700/- and additional security deposit. The appellant contends that the reconnection of electric line could not be effected until and unless the unmetered consumption is paid. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that no notice of disconnection was required to be served upon the consumer in case of pilferage of electricity. The respondent submits that this appeal is not at all maintainable under the C.P. Act and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. The appellant prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Forum below which is, according to it, 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 7.6.2000 by the C.E.S.C. people on a surprise visit to the company of the respondent. The representatives of Loss Control Cell of the appellant 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. The appellant has submitted a report regarding the theft of electrical energy. We find that after the theft was detected an FIR was lodged with the local police station to that effect and a notice was given to the respondent demanding payment for unmetered consumption. The appellant submits in support of its contention that no notice is required to be given in case of pilferage 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 respondent refers to a judgment of the National Commission 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 powers 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, 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 find much substance in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and are of the opinion that the Forum has erred in setting aside the lawful demand of the unmetered consumption of Rs. 29,700/-. It will be open to the respondent to approach the C.E.S.C. Ltd. and to make payment against the unmetered consumption and additional security deposit and also the charges for reconnection. On the facts and circumstances we make no order as to costs. Therefore, the appeal is allowed ex parte and the judgment of the Forum below is set aside. The appeal is thus disposed of. A copy of this order is to be sent to the respondent immediately. Appeal allowed.