Judgment 1. The above Representation was received in this office on 13.9.2005 and registered as Representation No. 9/ 2005. 2. Accordingly notices were issued to the parties on 19.9.2005 fixing the date for submission of the point wise reply of the Respondents and hearing on 28.9.2005, which was later on amended to 5.10.2005. 3. On 5.10.2005 learned Counsel for the Complainant Sri Mahesh Chandra Bansal, the Complainant, Sri Sharat Goel as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondents (Licensee) Ms. Shashi Yogeshwar were present. The next date 26.10.2005 was fixed for hearing. 4. On 26.10.2005 learned counsel for the Licensee Sri S.M. Jain was present. Sri Anil Kumar represented the Complainant and had received the rejoinder of the Licensee. He requested for time to file his response to it. The. next date was thus fixed for this on 9.11.2005. 5. However this date had to be amended to 8.11.2005 for which notices were sent on 27.10.2005. On 8.11.2005 learned Counsel for Licensee Sri S.M. Jain was present. Rejoinder of the Complainant was now on record. Learned Counsel of the Licensee said there was no need for any response to the rejoinder. Clarifications from the Licensee that were considered necessary were to be asked from them, which was subsequently done and obtained. The next date 23.11.2005 was fixed for arguments and notices were issued accordingly. 6. On 23.11.2005 the arguments given by the learned Counsel for the Complainant were heard. The learned Counsel for the Licensee sought time for his arguments and 7.12.2005 was fixed for further arguments. Notices were issued accordingly. 7. On 7.12.2005 the arguments of learned Counsels of both parties were heard and 14.12.2005 was thus fixed for final orders. Notices were issued accordingly on 8.12.2005. Facts and circumstances of the case 8. The Complainant MIS Sri Ham Solvent Extraction (P) Ltd., P.O. Jaspur Distt. Udham Singh Nagar had been a power consumer of the erstwhile U.P.S.E.B. It had run a 95 HP connection (Service Connection No. 1001/ 1379) since the year 1988 tiIl1.5.1995 after which (2.5.95) it had got its load increased to 150 KVA. 9. The Complainant had sought enhancement of its load from 95 HP to 150 KVA on 16.9.94. 10. Neither of the parties had made any averment to having any dispute till 26.7.1994. 9. The Complainant had sought enhancement of its load from 95 HP to 150 KVA on 16.9.94. 10. Neither of the parties had made any averment to having any dispute till 26.7.1994. However, on 26.7.1994 a checking report signed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Kashipur and the Assistant Engineer(Meters), S.D.O. Distribution, Kashipur and other officials revealed that the body seal of the meter on the Complainant's factory was found broken and that 'R' phase pressure coil "showed discontinuity". The report also bore the remark that a "final report shall be furnished after verifying the seals details from records and seeing the condition of meter from inside". 11. The Licensee thereafter issued the sealing certificate dated 1.8.94 which showed the replacement of the "body seal broken" 'meter with that of a new meter. It made no additional remark apart from the one already made' on 26.7.94 of finding the 'R' phase pressure coil showing discontinuity and the body seal being found broken. 12. The purported reason for removing the body seal broken meter (HXBO-80/50644) from the installation was to conduct its checking in the Meter Test Lab but the Licensee did not produce any record of having done so. 13. A broken body seal is considered a prima-facie offence of fraud as per the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, Regulation 21 (vi). But the Licensee did not proceed to treat it so. The above Regulations, 1984, Regulation No. 21 (vi) also prescribes penal assessment of consumption under Annexure-1 besides action under I.E. Rule 138. But as said no penal assessment was done. 14. Following the above report of 1.8.94 the Licensee made an .assessment of the Complainant's connection on its basis, that the 'R' phase pressure coil discontinuity caused the consumption to record one-third less than the actual. This it did as per the chart for the month of May, June and July 1994 as shown below:- S. No. Month &Year Consumption Consumption after assessment previously for pressure coil broken in Units Recorded in Units 1 5/94 8610 14123 2 6/94 4860 10373 3 7/94 6533 12640 The assessment was done only for the past 3 months from the date of checking. 15. On 1.8.94 the body seal broken meter was replaced by a new meter. The respective numbers of the meters concerned in this matter are given in the sealing certificate issued on 1.8.94. 15. On 1.8.94 the body seal broken meter was replaced by a new meter. The respective numbers of the meters concerned in this matter are given in the sealing certificate issued on 1.8.94. Of particular importance is the remark of the Assistant Engineer (Meters) that "New meter KXSO-37/1010409 could not (be) checked on load and shall be checked....(illegible). The last can reasonably be taken to mean "when supply is available". 16. It stands admitted by the Licensee that the said connections were not checked in the ensuing nine months despite the categorical assurance of doing so by the A.E.(Meters). 17. It is thereafter averred by the Licensee that on 1.5.95 a team comprising of "... the Assistant Engineer (Meters) and the Junior Engineer (Distribution) of the area visited the petitioner's premises in order to release the load If 150 KVA and to install the meter of the required capacity...""... that the meter box was opened and (i) paper seal was found broken, and (ii) 'B' phase C. T. Connection found polarity• (reverse). Hence the meter was recording only one third load". 18. The above finding given by the Licensee is the basic cause of the dispute. While the Licensee avers that these findings were immediately made known to the Complainant who acknowledged these and signed the sealing certificate in token of that, the Complainant asserts that the key lines that state inter alia the polarity reversal and of finding the seals broken or• tampered or both were interpolated after on after he had signed an innocuously worded sealing certificate. This therefore makes out a criminal offence but the Complainant did not lodge an F.I.R. on that. 19. The Complainant went on to cap this allegation by stating that the A.E. Meters (Sri Shukla) called the Complainant to his house and even demanded a consideration to do, what, which was not made clear by them However as stated the Complainant did not lodge an F.I.R. and what is more astounding is that the officer whose integrity was challenged also did nothing to clear himself as per the record in this case. 20. 20. The checking report/sealing report of 1.5.95 which was alleged to have been interpolated with the purported remarks of fraud shows that the seal of the meter box, terminal plate and the C. T. chamber (as concluded by the Appellant Committee) had also been tampered by the Complainant besides showing the reversal of polarity of 'B' phase C.T. connection. 21. The above meter which term includes the C.Ts, wiring etc. was removed that very day. 22. On 2.5.95 the additional load was released, which the Complainant cites as evidence of absence of fraud on his part stating to that effect that otherwise the Licensee would have taken recourse to launching prosecution rather than releasing the additional load. 23. The Licensee issued a bill for Rs. 2, 90,875.81 dated 17.7.95 for the additional 2/3rd consumption that it claimed was due on the state of the .polarity reversal of the 'B' phase, C.T. connection. This bill was thereafter challenged by the Complainant on 10.8.95 before the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, U.P.S.E.B., Rudrapur. 24. The above appeal inter alia basically challenges the C.T. connection reversal and in effect alleges mala fide, forgery and attempted criminal extortion by the Licensee (UPSEB). 25. In exercise of the powers under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 the UPSEB had constituted an "Appellant Committee" as per Section 23 of the UPSEB's Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations 1984 to• go into the appeals arising out of assessments made under Section 22. . 26. It would suffice to state that the Committee concluded vide its order No. 247 dated 8.2.99 to this effect that the Complainant had indulged in fraud in terms of the meaning given under Section 26(6) of the I.E. Act 1910 and that the bill raised for Rs. 2,90,875.81 was correct. Further more it held the two officers directly concerned to have been answerable for not launching prosecution for the fraud and were to be issued a warning for that. 27. As per Para 18 the above Committee was the lawful body to go into the appeal in such matters during that period. 28. However these findings were not accepted by the Complainant who went in writ petition against the above to the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad from where the same was transferred to Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal, Nainital. 29. 28. However these findings were not accepted by the Complainant who went in writ petition against the above to the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad from where the same was transferred to Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal, Nainital. 29. The Complainant withdrew his W.P. from the Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal, Nainital on or after 1.7.2005 to file his Complaint before the learned Forum on 29.7.2005. 30. He has cited the I.E. Act of 2003 3ection 42(5) to file the grievance application before the learned Forum. 31. The Forums and the Ombudsman had been constituted under the prolusion of the above Act and its Section 42 (5) & (6) respectively vice the Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulation No. 1/2004/UERC dated 10.2.2004 and No.4 dated 14.5.2004, respectively.. 32. The said Regulations define what shall constitute a "Complaint". This is reproduced as under : "(f) "Complaint" means the letter or application filed with the Forum seeking Redressal of grievances concerning the supply of electricity, ...... xxxxx Matters falling within the purview of any of the following provisions or the Act will not form a Complaint under these Regulations : (i) Unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Act. (ii) Offences and penalties as provided under Section 135 to 139 of the Act. (iii) xx xx (iv) xx xx EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND ISSUES IN THE MATTER. 33. Before we can proceed to do the above it is necessary to state that the dispute pertains to the period prior to 10.6.2003 from which date the I.E. Act 2003 came into force. 34. During the period of the disputed case the I.E. Act 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 were in force. 35. Under the •powers vested in it under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Section 49 and 79) the U.P.S.E.B. promulgated their Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984. As stated earlier the UPSEB further promulgated the constriction of its Appellant Committee under Regulation 23 including its amendments thereafter. 36. 35. Under the •powers vested in it under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Section 49 and 79) the U.P.S.E.B. promulgated their Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984. As stated earlier the UPSEB further promulgated the constriction of its Appellant Committee under Regulation 23 including its amendments thereafter. 36. We now come to the body of the arguments made by the learned (0unsel for the Complainant that the case attracts the provision of the I.E. Act 1910 under section 26(6), that the disputed connections along with the meter were to be referred to the Electrical Inspector to the Government as well as that the assessment of the consumption was also under his purview and not that of the Ucensee. In support the Counsel cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the BEST Vs Lafeans (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Am of 27.4.2005. 37. The learned Counsel for the Respondents refuted the above contention that the case merited referring to the Electrical Inspector citing the Hon'ble C.J, S.C. ruling Para 6 that "Section 26(6) will have no applicability (i) if the consumer is found to have committed a fraud....." 38. The I.E. Act 1910 Section 26(6) says, "........But save as aforesaid. The register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity." The key words are "....in the absence of fraud..." 39. If the case was to be proceeded with under the provisions of law contained in the I.E. Act 1910 then this means that the provisions of the I.E. Act 2003 are not to be applied in the matter. In that case the Electricity Laws prior to the I.E. Act 2003 are relevant. That means besides the I.E. Act 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 shall prevail . in this case. 40. This therefore attracts the UPSEB Regulations under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 and the Section 23 of the Regulations constituting the Appellant Committee comprising the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer and the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer as was also argued by the learned Counsel for the Licensee. This leads to the conclusion that the Committee's order 247 of 8.2.99 is thus still in force and is legally binding upon the parties to the dispute. 41. But the Counsel for the Complainant has also taken recourse to referring the matter under the provision of Section 42(5) & (6) of the I.E. Act 2003. This leads to the conclusion that the Committee's order 247 of 8.2.99 is thus still in force and is legally binding upon the parties to the dispute. 41. But the Counsel for the Complainant has also taken recourse to referring the matter under the provision of Section 42(5) & (6) of the I.E. Act 2003. That invokes the provisions of the UERC's Regulations cited earlier which specifically bar the Forum and the Ombudsman from considering any Complaint attracting Section 126 or Sections 135 to 139 of the I.E. Act 2003. 42. In that case the learned Forum has fundamentally erred in treating the subject matter of the Complaint as failing under its purview. The learned Counsel for the Complainant has repeated the error of seeking the Representation against the Forum's decision to lie within the purview of the Ombudsman. The Forum also considers the assessment as not arising out of any fraud but this was not the view in the decision of the UPSEB Appellant Committee which held the Complainant responsible for it, and also held the officers answerable for not lodging an F.I.R. in the case. 43. At best it can thus be said that the Forum erred on the side of oversight in considering the matter to be that of a bill in dispute. 44. As stated the learned Counsel for the Respondents has however argued that the Appellant Committee had been the legally constituted body to go into the appeal against the Licensee's bill that was raised on account of polarity reversal during that point of time. 45. The examination of the facts, circumstances and issues arising in this case establish the above to be so and as the law stands the decision of the UPSEB's Appellant Committee (247 of 8.2.99) is still binding upon both parties, which had upheld that the appellant had to pay the amount of Rs. 2, 90, 875,81. To that extent the Forum has not transgressed upon the order of the Appellant Committee but it acted beyond its jurisdiction to examine the case afresh. 46. The case falls outside the purview of the Ombudsman (as also it did of the Forum) and the decision of the UPSEB Appellant Committee stands in force which held the Complainant liable to pay the amount of Rs. 2,90,875,81/ (as also inclusive of all other charges accruing out of that unpaid bill so far). AWARD 47. 46. The case falls outside the purview of the Ombudsman (as also it did of the Forum) and the decision of the UPSEB Appellant Committee stands in force which held the Complainant liable to pay the amount of Rs. 2,90,875,81/ (as also inclusive of all other charges accruing out of that unpaid bill so far). AWARD 47. Having diligently considered and examined all the facts and circumstances of the complainants' Representation against the decision of the leaq1ed Consumers' Grievances Redressal Forum, Kumaon Zone, P.O. Kathgodam Distt. Nainital and after giving due hearing to both the parties and having thus considered their arguments, I come to the conclusion that since the matter pertains to the year 1995-96, when the I.E. Act 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 prevailed, the UPSEB was in full legal authority to constitute the Appellant Committee under its Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations 1984 to which it referred the Complainant's appeal in this case and so the Appellant Committee's decision vide its order 247 of 8.2.99 is still legally in force. That being the case the subsequent reexamination of the same matter by the above Forum was done beyond its jurisdiction and powers as per the UERC's Regulations although the Forum upheld the decision of the Appellant Committee holding the Complainant liable to pay the assessment bill for Rs. 2,90,875.81/- Accordingly, I find the Appellant Committee's decision upholding the Licensee's assess me not bill of Rs. 2,90,875,81/ and all further charges accruing therein for not paying the bill is still in force and binding upon the Complainant. The case is decided accordingly and this Representation is accordingly rejected.