C.E.S.C. Ltd. vs SUMITA PAL

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the order of the West Bengal State Commission at Calcutta dated 21.12.1995 allowing the appeal of the complainant and setting aside the order dated 29.8.1995 passed by the District Forum, Calcutta. The Calcutta Electric Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors. were directed to restore the electricity of the complainant within 7 days from the date of the communication of the order.

THE facts lie in a narrow compass and may be stated. THE complainant is a consumer of the electricity supplied and serviced by the Calcutta Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (for short called C.E.S.C. Ltd.) with Consumer No. 03021071064 with Meter No. 630168-40 in the commercial premises of M/s. Apsara (Beauty Parlour) located at 4-H, Panchanantala Road, (1st Floor), Calcutta (for short called premises). THE electricity supply at the said premises was disconnected by C.E.S.C. Ltd. on 9th May, 1995. THE complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the disconnection of electricity being Consumer Case No. C.D.F. 1073/95. On being noticed, the C.E.S.C. Ltd. filed its written objections to the complaint. It was stated that acting upon a credible information received in the Central Office of the C.E.S.C. Ltd. the officers from the Loss Control Cell undertook a surprise visit to the consumer premises wherein the electricity was being supplied and upon inspection found that the consumer was drawing electricity directly from the service cutouts thereby by-passing the meter which was installed for registering consumption of electricity at the said premises. It was pleaded that this was in gross violation of the statutory provisions and conditions of supply under which the complainant was being supplied electricity by C.E.S.C. Ltd. and that the officers of C.E.S.C. Ltd. acting in terms of the power conferred under, inter alia, the 2nd proviso of Paragraph VI of the Schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, disconnected the electric supply at the said premises on the 9th May, 1995. It was also brought on record that the C.E.S.C. Ltd. lodged a complaint which the Officer-in-charge. Lake Police Station, Calcutta against the complainant for tampering with the meter, and thereby committing an offence under the said Act. THE complainant was also informed by a notice dated 9th May, 1995 about the reasons which compelled the C.E.S.C. Ltd. to disconnect the electric supply to the said premises. It was also pleaded that the complainant met the Deputy Manager (Commercial) when she was informed by letter dated 12.5.95 that the unmetered consumption charges worked out by the C.E.S.C. Ltd. were Rs 57,405/- which she would have to pay along with reconnection charges of Rs. 30/- and to comply with other statutory formalities for obtaining restoration of electric supply. The District Forum by the order dated the 29th August, 1995 held that it is well-settled that Consumer FORA cannot entertain any matter for theft of investigation and adjudication and it can only be decided in a separate proceeding and that disconnection of electricity on the ground of theft is not deficiency in service by the Licencee. However, the District Forum ordered that the complainant cannot be asked to wait for a long time for the decision of the Criminal Court and ordered C.E.S.C. Ltd. to restore the supply of electricity to the complainant within 3 days on her payment on ad hoc basis of 30% of unmetered consumption with reconnection fee.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29th August, 1995 the complainant preferred an appeal before the West Bengal State Commission. By the impugned order dated 21st December, 1995 the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated the 29th August, 1995 passed by the District Forum, Calcutta, and directed the C.E.S.C. Ltd. to restore the electricity within 7 days from the date of the communication of the order.

THE C.E.S.C. Ltd. filed the present revision Petition which came up for admission before this Commission on 25th March, 1996. THE revision petition was admitted and an interim stay of enforcement of the order passed by the District Forum and the State Commission until further orders was granted. THE revision petition came up for final hearing before this Commission on 15th November, 1996. THE Counsel for the revision petitioner brought to our attention a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board''s case, Civil Appeal No. 7798/96 dated 18th April, 1996 where the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope and effect of Clause 31 (e) of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity incorporated in the tariff notification and it was held that when the electric supply to the premises of the consumer is disconnected on the ground of theft of electricity the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which provides for 7 days notice being mandatorily given before disconnection have no application. On going through the said judgment of the Supreme, Court, we found that the facts there were that the inspection of the premises of the consumer was conducted in the presence of the consumer and she was a signatory to the inspection report prepared by the inspecting staff wherein mention is made of theft of electricity having been detected. It was, therefore, necessary to find out whether in the case before this Commission, the respondent herein, who is the consumer, was present at the time when the inspecting staff is alleged to have detected the theft of electricity in the premises by short-circuiting the meter and whether the consummer had any opportunity to have her say before the inspecting staff in respect of the alleged electricity theft. We called upon the parties to file affidavits as well as relevant documents, which would throw light on the aspect as to whether the inspection was conducted on the premises during which theft was said to have been detected in the presence of the consumer or her representative. The affidavit of Shri Debabrata Dam Chaudhary, an Engineer in the Loss Control Cell of C.E.S.C. Ltd. has been filed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the complainant. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. The copy of the inspection report of the Loss Control Cell of C.E.S.C. Ltd. is on the record. The C.E.S.C. Ltd. has constituted a Loss Control Cell to prevent loss on account of pilferage/unauthorised abstraction of energy. Shri Chaudhary who has filed the affidavit before this Commission is an Engineer of the Loss Control Cell of C.E.S.C. Ltd. He alongwith security consultant. Loss Control Cell, went on 9th May, 1995 at about 12.00 hrs. to the building in which the said premises are located for a routine inspection of the meters installed therein. According to the affidavit, the inspection of the premises was carried out with the co-operation of the employees of the building complex. However, the lady representative of the Beauty Parlour functioning under the name and style of ''Apsara Beauty Parlour'' refused to co-operate with the inspection team and that she took the stand that she would neither accompany the inspection team nor send any representative to be present at the time of inspection. The artificial means within the meaning of Section 39 of the said Act were noticed which is prima facie evidence of theft. After the inspection the notice dated 9th May, 1995 was served on the complainant to the following effect: "Dear Madam, During our inspection at the above premises on date, we observed the following: (a) The seals on the service cutouts were missing (Rule 56 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956). (b) The seals on the meter body of the above meters were tampered (Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910). (c) Your installation did not comply with Clauses VI (i) 2nd proviso Sub-section (c) of the Schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in that the main switch was coming out of the wall and the wiring installation was hanging loose. The aforesaid violations are in contravention to the statutory provisions of our Conditions of Supply, Indian Electricity Act & Rules as mentioned against each. We have therefore, disconnected your installation from our supply mains on 9.5.1995."

AN FIR was lodged to the same effect. Power is conferred upon the C.E.S.C. Ltd. under the provisions of the said Act, particularly Paragraph V of the Schedule thereto to disconnect the electric supply and it does not provide for any notice being given to the consumer where on inspection it was found that the metering equipment had been tampered with and the meter was being by-passed in consumption of electricity as artificial means within the meaning of Section 39 of the said Act are prima facie evidence of theft. In M.P. Electricity Board v. Babu Lal, II (1995) CPJ 132 (NC), this Commission held that where there was a tampering with the metering connection by the consumer it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board so as to warrant the grant of any relief to the consumer in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In M.P. Electricity Board case (supra) JT 1996 (5) SC 443, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 24 of the said Act. It was held that the Board when it detects that any consumer had committed any malpractice with reference to his use of electric energy including unauthorised alterations, installations, unauthorised extension and use of devices to commit theft of electric energy", the Board may without prejudice to other rights, disconnect the supply of electricity forthwith and may call upon the consumer to make payment for compensation for the unauthorised use of the electricity. It was further held that Section 24 does not apply to demand on detection of pilferage. In this case, a prima facie conclusion of pilferage of electric energy has been reached that the meters were tampered with by artificial means, and thus the electric supply could be disconnected without notice. The exercise of the power of disconnection is in accordance with the statutory powers and cannot be construed as any deficiency in service. The revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside and the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It will be open to the complainant to approach the C.E.S.C. Ltd., and to comply with the orders making additional demands of the electricity consumed and to pay reconnection charges and obtain reconnection. On the facts and circumstances we make no order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.