w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Puroshattam Sharma v/s Executive Engineer, Gwalior North M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Another

Company & Directors' Information:- S C SHARMA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1948PTC001507

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035620

Company & Directors' Information:- K P SHARMA (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1988PTC045569

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2017PTC220657

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012750

Company & Directors' Information:- J. R. SHARMA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24211DL1966PTC004602

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND K VIDYUT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101JK2001PTC002185

Company & Directors' Information:- M K SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74994DL1982PTC014090

Company & Directors' Information:- ENGINEER & ENGINEER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2016PTC293097

Company & Directors' Information:- C S ENGINEER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC122355

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA AND SHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC276949

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA & CO. PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28991WB1949PTC018064

    First Appeal No. 2252 of 2012

    Decided On, 03 February 2020

    At, Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal

    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Hemant Sharma, Learned Counsel. For the Respondents: Rajeev Acharya, Learned Counsel.

Judgment Text

Shantanu S. Kemkar, President

1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (For short ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.443/2012 whereby the complaint has been dismissed, the complainant has filed this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the appellant/complainant are that he had a domestic electricity connection no. 39425505-72-6-1159318. It is stated that before November-2010 he was given bills on the basis of estimated consumption of which oral and written complaints were made but he was not given bills on the basis of actual consumption. The meter-reader made illegal demand of which complaint was made. Thereafter the vigilance team of the respondent-electricity company on 11.12.2011 inspected his premises and by showing use of excess load and commercial use in panchnama raised a bill for a sum of Rs.16,136 on 16.03.2012. He alleged that thereafter his electricity connection was illegallydisconnected on 28.03.2012 and despite application it was not restored. The complainant thereafter is using his domestic electricity connection from the non-domestic electricity connection installed in his premises. The complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking relief of cancellation of said assessment order along with compensation and cost and prayed for raising the bills on the basis of actual consumption.

3. The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the complainant/appellant was found using electricity from his domestic electricity connection to non-domestic electricity connection by putting a wire. Thus on the basis of use of excessive load more than the sanctioned one, bills were raised which are justified. The complainant not made any complaint against the meter reader.

4. The Forum dismissed the complaint holding that since from the complainant’s own submission, it is established that he is illegally using electricity for his domestic electricity connection from the non-domestic electricity connection, he is not entitled to get relief of cancellation of bill raised under the provisional assessment order. It is further held that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved on part of the opposite party/respondent electricity company. Hence this appeal.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is revealed that present case is based on allegation of theft of electricity. Respondents have inspected the premises of the appellant on 11.12.2011 and found the appellant was using electricity for his domestic electricity connection from non-domestic electricity connection and load was found more than the sanctioned one of which panchnama (Exhibit ‘C-2’) was prepared under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly, under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, provisional assessment was made and bill was raised.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmad, III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC) has held that a Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as acts of indulging in unauthorized use of electricity as defined under Se

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ction 126 or committing offence under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act do not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint being not maintainable before the Forum has rightly been dismissed by the Forum. 7. As a result, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The appeal fails and is dismissed.<