UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ANOTHER vs MADHU BALA

The complainant/respondent had installed a small flour mill (Atta Chakki) in Village Dera, Tehsil Naraingarh of District Ambala in Haryana. He had taken an electricity connection from the petitioner, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam for running the aforesaid flour mill. On 17.08.2005, the flour mill of the complainant was checked by the staff of the petitioner and it was found that

he was indulging in committing theft of electricity. The electricity meter had been bypassed by connecting three loops of about 1.5ft each, one end of the loops was found inserted through holes at the bottom side of NCF and connected to I/C terminals of meter, whereas the other end of the loops was found connected to kit-kat fuse system. Thereby, the electricity was being drawn without routing it through the meter. A bill of Rs. 2,40,000/- was thereupon raised on the complainant/respondent. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum, alleging inter-alia that no notice had been given to him and the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act had not been complied.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, inter-alia, on the ground that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits, the demand was justified on the ground that the complainant was indulging in theft of electricity in the above referred manner. The meter was, therefore, removed in the presence of Sh. Om Prakash, father-in-law of the complainant, who was present at the time of checking and later a demand of Rs. 2,40,000/- was raised against the complainant.

Vide its order dated 07.05.2007, the concerned District Forum, declared the demand raised by the petitioner to be null and void and directed the refund of the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-, which the complainant had paid in the meanwhile, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum , compensation quantified at Rs. 10,000/- and cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 02.08.2010, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.

It is evident from a perusal of the pleadings of the parties before the District Forum that according to the petitioner, the complainant/respondent was indulging in theft of electricity since the electricity supply was being consumed without the same being routed through the electricity meter.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5416 of 2012, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Anis Ahmed , inter alia held as under: "45. The National Commission though held that the intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and have saved the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, failed to notice that by virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections 173,174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in "unauthorized use of electricity" as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Sections 135 to 140 do not fall within the meaning of "complaint" as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The acts of indulgence in "unauthorized use of electricity" by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003 neither has any relationship with "unfair trade practice" or "restrictive trade practice" or "deficiency in service" nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the licensee. Such acts of "unauthorized use of electricity" has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in ''unauthorized use of electricity'', do not fall within the meaning of "complaint", as we have noticed above and, therefore, the "complaint" against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

In view of the observation made above, we hold that:

(i) ***

(ii) A "complaint" against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.

(iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service"; or "hazardous service"; or "the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law".

Thus, a Consumer Forum lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, where demand is raised on the allegations of theft of electricity. Whether the complainant actually indulged into theft of electricity or not, is not for the Consumer Forum to decide.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed. No order as to costs.