HARADHAN HAZRA vs DISTRICT ENGINEER, C.E.S.C. LTD.

-BOTH the appeals are similar in nature and so a similar judgment will serve the purpose of both the appeals. The case of the appellant in brief is stated herein. The appellant is a bona fide consumer of electricity under the CESC Ltd. He has two electrical meters and has been paying electricity bills regularly as raised by the respondent No. 1. There was no allegation of dishonest effort on this part and there was never any inquiry from the side of the CESC Ltd. But one day in his absence, some persons claiming themselves to be employees of the CESC, disconnected his service line. Afterwards he visited the office of the respondent No. 1 and tried to ascertain the reason of such disconnection, but did not get any reply from that office. On 8.9.2000 he received a letter from the CESC Ltd. dated 1.9.2000, stating some false and concocted version. Thereafter, the respondents sent three bills dated 19.9.2000 claiming certain amounts which wee absolutely unjustified, false, arbitrary and illegal. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that he never committed any act which was against the law of electricity and never committed any theft of energy. But the respondents with a view to extract money from him illegally and fraudulently raised the bills which have no basis at all and he is not liable to pay the same. Due to disconnection of electricity his business has been totally closed and he has been suffering pecuniary loss everyday. For this reason he filed a case before the Forum claiming for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- by way of compensation and prayed for a declaration that the bills were raised illegally and arbitrarily and he is not bound to pay the same.

THE Forum in its judgment dated 26.8.2002, held that the appellant may approach a competent Civil Court in a civil suit for redressal of his grievances and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment the appellant has preferred the appeal before this commission. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Forum below had committed serious mistake in passing the judgment in deviation with the earlier judgment dated 12.2.2002. On the whole the impugned judgment is against the spirit and object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In his opinion the judgment of the Forum below is erroneous, illegal and liable to be dismissed.

The respondents did not file any written objection, but their learned Counsel was present during final hearing. They submit that on 1.9.2000 it was detected by them that the appellant was abstracting electricity unauthorisedly by tampering with the original meter-body seal and replacing the said seal by spurious one. So, immediately they disconnected the supply of the appellant and addressed a letter to him on 1.9.2000, stating therein that as he made breach of agreement and illegally contravened the provisions of law, the CESC Ltd. was compelled to disconnect the supply without prior notice. The respondent also mentioned in their letter to submit a representation within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of that letter, failing which the respondents would be entitled to assess the value of the unmetered consumption ex parte. The respondents also made a report to the Bantra Police Station about the illegal tampering. They further submit that in spite of receipt of the letter dated 1.9.2000, the appellant did not care to make any representation and, therefore, they proceeded to assess the unmetered consumption charge at penal rate. They sent him three separate bills. The respondents also gave him an opportunity that if he was dissatisfied with the ex parte assessment, he can make an appeal to the Deputy Chief Engineer, L.C.C. and after depositing 50% of the claimed amount on account of unmetered consumption charge and other necessary charges, he can get the supply of electricity. But he did not turn up. In their opinion tampering of the seal is a gross violation of the mandatory provisions of law which entitles the CESC to disconnect the supply. So he is not entitled to get compensation of Rs. 80,000/- and his appeal is a misconceived on and liable to be dismissed.

IT is an admitted fact that the appellant is a bona fide consumer of CESC Ltd. On a sudden inspection on 1.9.2000, CESC Ltd. detected that the electrical energy was consumed by the appellant by artificial device and on that very date they lodged an F.I.R. with Bantra Police Station and immediately disconnected the electric connection. We carefully perused all the papers mentioned above and are of the clear view that it is a case of pilferage of electrical energy. The Forum also decided the case in the same light. The respondents adduce some evidence (F.I.R. and several letters) in this regard. But the appellant has not disputed the averments made by the respondents to the effect that the CESC Ltd. sent a letter dated 1.9.2000 to the appellant by registered post requesting him to send his representative to the office of the respondents, if he had any representation to make. But despite receipt of that letter the appellant did neither turn up, nor sent any representative before the CESC and thereafter the respondent was constrained to issue its letter of demand in question. From the side of the appellant no explanation has been offered as to why he did not raise any objection or protest before the CESC Authority against its report dated 1.9.2000, mentioned above. Had it been a false one, it would be quite likely and is in consonance with the normal course of human conduct that the appellant would at once raise his voice against it. Moreover, we do not get any cogent material before us to draw a conclusion that the CESC had any grudge or enmity against the appellant, so much so that it would create such an inspection report falsely. Learned Counsel for the respondents refer to Section 28(a) of the ''Condition of Supply'' which states, ''Where an Officer authorised by the Licensee in that behalf, has reasons to believe that the consumer has been or is guilty of malpractice in respect of use of energy or pilferage of electricity, he may at any time enter and inspect the installation at the consumer''s premise. Learned Counsel for the respondents also refer Section 29(a) of the same book in which it is stated that ''where there is reason to believe that the consumer has been or is guilty of pilferage of electricity, the Officer authorised by the Licensee in its behalf, may disconnect the electric supply without any notice and lodge an F.I.R. with the local Police Station within 24 hours from such disconnection.

IN this regard, the observation of the Hon''ble National Commission, [reported in 1997 (2) CPR 92 (NC) vide order dated 9.5.1997] is 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''. We are also to be governed by the dictates of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1996 SC 2258, in M.P. State 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 contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents and are in agreement with the views of the Forum. The appellant may refer his grievance to the Authority prescribed under the ''Conditions of Supply''. We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Forum below. We hold that the appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed on contest accordingly. Appeal dismissed.