C.E.S.C.LIMITED vs Paragon Rubber Industries

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30.11.2000 referring the dispute between the parties to the CEI, West Bengal for adjudication subject to the condition that the complainant shall deposit 40% of the amount of bill for the month of May, 2000 within 21 days from the date of the order along with requisite reconnection fee. It was further ordered that the reconnection of electric line should be done by the CESC after the aforesaid payment is made. Being aggrieved by the order, the CESC Ltd. has appealed. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that this is not an ordinary billing dispute and as such the Forum has erred in law in referring the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector. According to the appellant this is a case of pilferage of electric energy by the complainant. The pilferage was detected on 4.4.2000 during surprise inspection. It was noticed that the seal on the meter box was spurious and electric energy was dishonestly obstructed in violation of several provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder. On detection of this illegal drawal of electric energy by the complainant the line was disconnected. An FIR was lodged with local P.S. on the same date. According to the appellant the complainant is required to pay for the unmetered consumption of energy and the total outstanding would be around Rs. 6,82,917.40 p. The appellant contends that the reconnection of electric line could not be effected until and unless the unmetered consumption is paid. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that no notice of disconnection was required to be served upon the consumer in the case of pilferage of electricity. He submits with reference to Clauses 28 and 29 of the "Conditions of Supply" that in case of theft of electric energy or any malpractice by the consumer no notice of disconnection is required to be given. In the memo of appeal it has been asserted that the Loss Control Cell of the appellant detected illegal, drawal of electric energy in the premises. The seal was found tampered with. The appellant claims that a huge sum is outstanding towards consumption of electric energy by the complainant. It has been claimed that after the theft was detected the matter was reported to police and a notice was given to the complainant demanding payment for unmetered consumption. In support of his contention that no notice is required to be given in case of pilferage of energy. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to a case of CESC Ltd. v. Sumita Paul, reported in III (1997) CPJ 116 (NC)=1997 (2) CPR 92 (NC). It was held that where there was tampering with the meter connection by the consumer, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board (sic.) as to grant of any relief to the consumer in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. The learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to a case reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court page 852, to contend that notice is required to be given before disconnection of supply. The learned Counsel for the appellant argues that it was a case wherein there was Condition No. 36 by the Electric Supply Corporation for disconnection of supply by serving notice upon the consumer. According to him, the ruling cited above does not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the Conditions of Supply empowers the CESC to disconnect the supply line without serving notice in case of pilferage of energy. We have already noticed that Clauses 28 and 29 of the Conditions of Supply framed by the CESC with the approval of the Government empower the CESC to disconnect the line forthwith in case of commission of any mal-practice or pilferage of electricity. Since there is a specific provision for disconnection of supply in the case of pilferage of energy in the Conditions of Supply, the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in our view does not apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we uphold the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

HERE in this case, the specific allegation is that the consumer has tampered with the seal of the meter and has drawn energy by using artificial device and a huge amount remains unpaid towards unmetered consumption of energy. We think that the Forum was not justified in treating the present dispute as a mere billing dispute and referring the dispute to the CEI, West Bengal for adjudication. For the reasons aforesaid the judgment of the Forum cannot be sustained. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The complainant may approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief if so advised. The appeal be allowed and the case is disposed of with above observation. Appeal allowed.