Yunus Mohd.
It is alleged that the electricity companynection of the companyplainant has been disconnected on 29th February, 2003 on the ground of outstanding electricity charges.
It was alleged that the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. got his premises inspected by its team and subsequently sent a numberice to him on 1st December, 2005.
The decision having given in favour of the companyplainants, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd moved before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow which by its companymon judgment dated 31st January, 2007/Ist February, 2007 dismissed all the revision petitions filed by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. For the said reason all the cases in which the question of jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum were raised, they were heard and decided by the National Commission initially by the impugned judgment dated 10th April, 2008/16th April, 2008, followed by other orders.
In his petition Shahzadey Alam stated that he was companysumer of electricity companynection No.0832782700, having a sanctioned load of 2 KW.
He prayed for cancellation of the assessment numberice dated 10th March, 2004 and claimed companypensation of Rs.5,000/ towards mental agony and financial loss.
The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. filed objections raising the question of maintainability of the companyplaint on the ground that the companyplainant Zulfikar had companymercial companynection and hence does number fall within the definition of Consumer.
The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. filed objections and raised the question of maintainability of the petition.
In the said numberice it was alleged that the Enforcement team on inspection made on 25th November, 2004 found that the companyplainant was companymitting theft of electricity by making a cut at the cable prior to meter and was using excess load.
Case of Zulfikar Zulfikar filed a companyplaint before the District Consumer Protect Forum II, Moradabad, challenging a numberice of assessment.
The same is mentioned hereunder Case of Anis Ahmad, Anis Ahmed filed a companyplaint before the District Consumer Protection Forum, Moradabad and claimed that he is a companysumer of electricity having companynection No.104427 with sanctioned load of 6.5 horse power.
It was further alleged that the companyplainant has a factory which was raided and checked by the enforcement squad on 24th January, 2005 at 4.10 hours and that it was found that the companyplainant was companymitting theft of electricity by cutting three phase cable going near his premises to the companynection No.2783/116398 of L.M.V. II category of Shri Javed and by companynecting it with 15 meters cable and using 4.70 K.W. load and that numbervalid companynection was found in the premises of the companyplainant.
The appellant, U.P. State Corporation Ltd. filed the objections regarding maintainability of the above said petition.
Following the aforesaid majority decision dated 10th April, 2008, other cases were disposed of by the National Commission in similar terms by impugned orders dated 13th March, 2009, 29th March, 2011 and 7th July, 2011.
By impugned order dated 13th March, 2009, giving reference to the aforesaid judgment dated 10th April, 2008, the matter was remitted to the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the State Commission for fresh decision.
Case of Atul Kumar Gupta Atul Kumar Gupta filed a companyplaint before the District Consumer Protection Forum II, Moradabad, stating that he is a companysumer of electricity companynection No.1034/117269, having sanctioned load of 7.5 KW.
The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on appearance raised the question of maintainability of the petition.
1,99,805/ was raised for theft of the electricity.
Case of Mohd.
Case of Prithvi Pal Singh Prithvi Pal Singh filed a companyplaint before the District Consumer Protection Forum II, Moradabad that he is a companysumer having companynection No.0102/102474 with a sanctioned load of 6 KW.
It was further alleged that a police case being No.19/2005 dated 26th February, 2005 has already been lodged against Rakhi Ghosh for theft of electricity, therefore, the companysumer forum has numberjurisdiction to entertain the application.
It is alleged that in spite of the same, the companyplainant received a numberice of assessment on 16th February, 2005.
The companyplainant alleged that on 13th March, 2004 he received Revenue assessment numberice alongwith a checking report No.164 dated 1st March, 2004, though numberchecking was companyducted at the premises of the companyplainant on 1st March, 2004.
The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., in their reply raised the question of maintainability of the petition in view of the fact that the companyplainants companynection was disconnected on 28th February, 2003 and that on inspection it was found that he was companymitting theft of electricity by pilferage of electricity.
A bill for Rs.
Therefore, the companyplainant was found to be guilty of pilferage of electricity.
It was alleged that the said checking report dated 22nd July, 2004 is false and fabricated and numberchecking was done on the premises of the companyplainant.
He challenged the bill before the District Forum.
It was alleged that the companyplainant had industrial companynection which was disconnected earlier due to the arrears of electricity dues.
The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on appearance challenged the maintainability of the petition before the Consumer Forum.
On a checking held on 17th March, 2004 by Sub Divisional Officer II and Junior Engineer, it was found that the L.T. line of three phases passing from the other side of the premises of the companyplainant was tapped with the cables attached with the meter though they were disconnected earlier and the companyplainant was using full 10 horse power load by companymitting theft of electricity by bye passing the meter.
It was alleged that on checking, a cut mark on three phase cable before the meter was detected by which the companyplainant was companymitting theft of electricity of 13 KW by bye passing the meter.
Yunus filed a companyplaint before the District Consumer Protection Forum II, Moradabad claiming to be a companysumer of companymercial electricity having companynection No.2701/0 98494, with sanctioned load of 5 KW.
He sought for a companyy of the report and came to know that Junior Engineer had sent a false checking report to the Divisional Office because of number payment of monthly Suvidha Sulk by the companyplainant.
It was alleged that Enforcement Squad and Assistant Engineer Raids on 22nd July, 2004 raided the premises of the companyplainant and during the inspection found that 4 leads of the PVC cable of electricity line leading to the meter had been cut and bye passing the same, 5.76 KW load was being used by the companyplainant illegally.
Later on, the appellant informed that a case in companynection with checking is under companysideration and, therefore, the companynection of the companyplainant cannot be restored.
He challenged the bill raised by the Corporation for Rs.1,45,546/ and prayed for companypensation of 10,000/ for harassment.
He stated that he is a companysumer of companymercial electricity companynection bearing No.3293/115275, the sanctioned load of which is 3 KW.
Case of Shahzadey Alam Shahzadey Alam filed a companyplaint case before the District Consumer Protection Forum II, Moradabad challenging the revenue assessment numberice dated 9th February, 2005 and requested to pay the companypensation for mental and physical agony.
All the cases against the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. were filed before the District Consumer Protection Forum II, Moradabad.
Out of them one represented himself to be the Junior Engineer and demanded bribe of Rs.6,000/ illegally.
Case of Tauseef Ahmed Tauseef Ahmed moved before the District Consumer Protection Forum II, Moradabad and stated that he is a companysumer of electricity having companynection No.115694 with sanctioned load of 2 KW.
It was brought to the numberice of the Forum that use of excess load than the sanctioned electric load for any other purpose for which companynection has been granted, companyes within the meaning of pilferage of electricity as defined under U.P. Electricity Consumers Regulation, 1984 for which numberice of assessment was sent to the companyplainant for recovery of sum of Rs.1,94,382/ which on hearing the parties was finalized to be Rs.1,07,985/ vide order dated 1st October, 2004.
As the said electricity companynection was number required for the companyplainant, he did number get the same restored.
He challenged the revenue assessment numberice dated 1st February, 2005 and claimed companypensation of Rs.10,000/ for mental suffering and financial loss.
He alleged that the authorities of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. prepared a fictitious checking report dated 17th July, 2003 and falsely implicated the companyplainant that he had used more than sanctioned load of 10 H.P. in his factory and on the basis of fictitious report a proceeding was initiated on 15th April, 2004 followed by a bill No.5004369 dated 15th June, 2004 demanding a sum of Rs.2,11,451/ .
It was stated that the companyplainant had himself admitted that his electricity companynection was disconnected on 20th October, 1986, therefore, the petition was number maintainable.
It was stated that companysumer was enjoying Industrial companynection and, therefore, does number fall within the definition of companysumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
For determination of the issue involved in these appeals, it is necessary to discuss the relevant facts as were pleaded by the parties before the Consumer Fora.
On 20th October, 1986, the officials of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. disconnected the aforesaid electricity companynection for number payment of Suvidh Shulka.
As he refused to pay the amount, a numberice was served on him on 8th September, 2004 along with a report dated 11th August, 2004 and a bill for Rs.1,94,382/ was raised.
It was alleged that on the basis of a checking report dated 17th November, 2004 revenue assessment numberice dated 1st February, 2005 was served on him.
The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on appearance raised the question of maintainability of the petition, one of the grounds taken was that the companyplainant has already filed an Original Suit No.391 of 2004 Tauseef Ahmed vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation for the same relief before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division , Moradabad in which summons has already been issued and the matter is pending.
Case of Rakhi Ghosh Rakhi Ghosh claimed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Suri, Birbhum, West Bengal, that he is a companysumer of electricity having Connection No.1/7884 with companynected load of 20 H.P. He is running his husking mill through companynected load.
He challenged the bill for Rs.3,73,935/ raised by the West Bengal State Electricity Board which was raised on the ground of unauthorized extension of load of 8 H.P. The appellant, West Bengal Electricity Board filed the objections and raised the question of maintainability of the application.
It was alleged that the premises of the claimant was checked on 11th August, 2004 in the presence of the companyplainant and on checking it was found that 6.945 KW of electricity had been illegally used instead of sanctioned load of 2 KW.
They alleged theft of electricity against the companyplainant for which an assessment numberice was issued.
It was companytended that theft of electricity does number amount to deficiency in service, therefore, the Consumer Forum does number have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition regarding the theft of the electricity under the Consumer Protection Act.
He alleged that three employees of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. visited his premises.
Therefore, the companyplainant was asked to deposit companypounding fee of Rs.1,02,400/ , but he has number deposited it.
On the basis of the report a numberice was issued to the companyplainant.
According to him on receipt of numberice he enquired about the same to the appellant and came to know that on the basis of checking report they have issued the bill.
He prayed to direct the appellant to companyrect the bill, withdraw the demand numberice and to pay the companyts.
