C.E.S.C. Limited vs SHYAMAPADA HALDER

-THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Kolkata Unit-1, on 19.10.2001. The facts of the case in a nutshell are stated hereunder.

BEING a consumer under the O.P. in respect of commercial and industrial connections the complainant used to pay the electric bills regularly. But all of a sudden his industrial connection was disconnected by the O.P. on 4.7.2001 most arbitrarily and illegally. After disconnection the complainant was served a letter, containing the allegations of dishonest abstraction of energy, and according to the complainant such wild allegations of theft of energy is nothing but a mischievous ploy to extract and squeeze money from the bona fide consumer in a wrongful manner. The complainant has a small unit of grinding machine for his livelihood. Due to such disconnection he has to face financial crisis. The O.P. has issued a bill claiming Rs. 41,706.55 as unmetered consumption. Thereafter he filed a case before the Forum praying for direction upon the O.P. to restore the line and cancel the impugned bill and charges for additional security. The complainant also prays for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the loss in business. The Forum in its order directed the O.P. to raise 10% of the disputed bill within three days from receipt of the order and also directed the complainant to pay the same and within three days of the payment the O.P. would reconnect the line and thereafter the disputed bill should stand referred to the CEI, W.B. for adjudication.

Being dissatisfied with the above order the C.E.S.C.-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 25.7.2001 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 respondent. On detection of this illegal drawal of electric energy by the respondent, 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 41,706.55. 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 appellant further submits that this appeal is not at all maintainable under the C.P. Act and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. According to the appellant the judgment passed by the Forum below is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

ON careful perusal of the records we notice that it is a case of theft of electrical energy and it was detected on 25.7.2001 by the C.E.S.C. people on a surprise visit to the workshop of the respondent. The representatives of Loss Control Cell of the appellant found that the meter was tampered with and 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 respondent alleged that the C.E.S.C. inspected the meter without prior notice, which is illegal. 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 stated 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 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 its judgment in allowing the case. The learned Counsel for the respondent does not controvert the contention advanced by the appellant either in written or by verbal submission. 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 and obtain reconnection. On the facts and circumstances we make no order as to costs.

THEREFORE, the appeal is allowed on contest and the judgment of the Forum below is set aside. Appeal allowed.