Act Of Unauthorized Use Of Electricity Does Not Fall Within Ambit Of Consumer Protection Act: Madhya Pradesh State Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri A.K. Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr Srikant Pandey (Member) held that acts of unauthorized use of electricity and offences under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief Facts: The Complainant had obtained a...
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri A.K. Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr Srikant Pandey (Member) held that acts of unauthorized use of electricity and offences under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant had obtained a domestic electricity connection from M. P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited (“Electricity Company”). She was paying the bills regularly. However, in April 2022, the Electricity Company issued a bill for Rs. 79,854/-, which included Rs. 79,759/- as arrears. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (“District Commission”) against the Electricity Company.
In response, the Electricity Company stated that an inspection by their officers revealed that the Complainant was bypassing the meter and using electricity in an unauthorized manner. Proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, were initiated against her, and a case was pending before the Special Court regarding the theft of electricity.
The District Commission allowed the complaint and quashed the demand for Rs. 34,048/- as previous arrears in the bill for May 2023, along with the surcharge. The District Commission also directed the Electricity Company to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 3,000 as costs.
Dissatisfied by the decision, the Electricity Company filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (“State Commission”).
Observations by the Commission:
The State Commission found that the case was based on the allegation of electricity theft. The Electricity Company inspected the Complainant's premises on 29.12.2020 and discovered that she was drawing electricity in an unauthorized manner by cutting the service line before the meter. A panchnama was prepared in the Complainant's presence, but she refused to sign it. The Electricity Company then raised a provisional assessment order under Section 126/135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for Rs. 66,714/-. The Electricity Company mentioned that a criminal case regarding the theft of electricity was still pending before the Special Court.
The State Commission referred to the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. vs Anis Ahmad [(2013) CPJ 1 (SC)], where the Supreme Court held that a consumer forum does not have the power to adjudicate disputes related to assessments made under Section 126 or offences under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Acts of unauthorized use of electricity or offences under these sections do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. Therefore, it was held that the District Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint about the disputed penal bill.
As a result, the appeal was allowed and the District Commission's order was set aside.
Case Title: M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran and Anr. vs Smt. Renu Sikarwar
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1643 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellants: Ms Sapna Aggarwal
Advocate for the Respondent/Original Complainant: Shri Anurag Khaskalam
Date of Order: 22.07.2024