U.P.POWER CORPORATION LTD. vs. ANIS AHMAD

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Versus With C.A.No. 5469  of 2012 (@ SLP(C) No.14306 of 2009) C.A.No.  5470 of 2012 (@ SLP(C) No.33557 of 2011) C.A.No. 5471 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33558 of 2011) C.A.No. 5472 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33559 of 2011) C.A.No. 5473 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33560 of 2011) C.A.No.  5474 of 2012( @ SLP(C) No.33561 of 2011) JUDGMENT C.A.No. 5475  of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33562 of 2011) J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. The questions involved in these appeals are; a) whether  complaints   filed   by   the   respondents   before   the   Consumer  Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  were maintainable and; b) whether the Consumer Forum has  Page 1 2 jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer  or any person against the assessment made under Section 126  of the Electricity Act, 2003 or action taken under Sections 

New   Delhi   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   'National  Commission')   by   impugned   majority   judgment   (of   President  th and one Member) dated 10  April, 2008 observed and held as  follows: “x x x x x x x x  For   the   reasons   stated   below,   in   our  view,   the   aforesaid   questions   can   be  answered as under: (i)In case of final assessment order  passed   under   Section   126   of   the  Electricity   Act,   if   a   consumer   is  aggrieved,   he   can   file   complaint  under   the   Consumer   Protection   Act.  However,   it   is   his   option   to   file  complaint   under   the   Consumer  Protection   Act   or   to   file   Appeal  under Section 127 of the Electricity  Act. JUDGMENT (ii)Further, against the final order  passed   by   the   Appellant   Authority  under Section 127 of the Electricity  Act, no complaint can be entertained  by the Consumer Fora. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x  x x x x x x x x x x x  Page 2 3

V. In the result, we hold as under: (i)Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act  and   Section   175   of   the   Electricity   Act,  provide that they are in addition and not in  derogation of rights under any other law for  the   time   being   in   force.     Therefore,   the  rights   of   the   consumers   under   the   Consumer  Protection   Act   are   not   affected   by   the  Electricity Act. (ii)A bare reading of Sections 173, 174 and  175, makes it clear that the  intent of the  Legislature is not to bar the jurisdiction of  the   Consumer   Fora   constituted   under   the  Consumer Protection Act.   The provisions of  the   Electricity   Act   have   overriding   effect  qua provisions of any other law except that  of   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986,   the  Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Railways Act,  1989. JUDGMENT (iii)Section   42(8)of   the   Electricity   Act  specifically   provides   that   the   remedies  conferred on consumer under sub­sections (5),  (6)   and   (7)   of   Section   42   are   without  prejudice to the right which the consumer may  have apart from the rights conferred upon him  by those sub­sections. Page 3 4

Second   part   of   Section   145  provides   that   no   jurisdiction  shall  be  granted  by any Court  or  Authority in respect of any action  taken or to be taken in pursuance  of any power conferred by or under  the Act.  For  this  purpose,  if  we  refer to Sections 173 and 174 and  apply   the   principle   laid   down  there­under,   it   would   mean   that  qua   the   consumer   fora   there   is  inconsistency   and,   therefore,  'other   authority'   would   not  include consumer fora. JUDGMENT (v)Consumer of electrical energy provided by  the   Electricity   Board   or   other   Private  Company,   is   a   consumer   as   defined   under  Section 2(1)(o)of the Consumer Protection Act  and   a   complaint   alleging   any   deficiency   on  the   part   of   the   Board   or   other   private  company   including   any   fault,   imperfection,  shortcoming or inadequacy in quality, nature  and manner of performance which is required  to be maintained by or under any law or in  pursuance   of   any   contract   in   relation   to  service,   is   maintainable   under   the   Consumer  Protection Act. Page 4 5

(vi)Consumer   Fora   have   no   jurisdiction   to  interfere   with   the   initiation   of   criminal  proceedings or the final order passed by any  Special   Court   constituted   under   Section   153  or   the   civil   liability   determined   under  Section 154 of the Electricity Act.” 3. The judicial Member having not agreed with the majority  th finding,   by   his   minority   judgment   dated   16   April,   2008  held as follows: JUDGMENT “14. In the result I hold as under: (i)The   provisions   contained   in   Section   126  and 127 of Part XII of the Electricity Act,  2003 are not inconsistent with the provisions  of   Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986   and  consequently there is no need to have resort  to the provisions of Section 173 and 174 of  the   Electricity   Act.   The   provisions   of   the  Consumer   Protection   Act   and   Electricity   Act  can be given their full meaning and effect on  the   ground   (ii)   Consumer   fora   constituted  under the Consumer Protection Act would have  jurisdiction to entertain only the complaints  filed by a consumer of electricity alleging  any   defect   or   deficiency   in   the   supply   of  electricity   or   alleging   adoption   of   any  Page 5 6

April, 2008,  other cases were disposed of by the National  th  Commission in similar terms by impugned orders dated 13 th th March,   2009,   29   March,   2011   and   7   July,   2011.     By  th impugned order dated 13   March, 2009, giving reference to  th the aforesaid judgment dated 10   April, 2008,   the matter  was   remitted   to   the   State   Consumers   Disputes   Redressal  Commission   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “State  Commission')  for fresh decision.  4. For   determination   of   the   issue   involved   in   these  JUDGMENT appeals,  it is necessary to discuss the relevant facts as  were pleaded by the parties before the Consumer Fora. The  same is mentioned hereunder: 5.  ase of Anis Ahmad C     ,  Anis   Ahmed   filed   a   complaint   before   the   District  Consumer Protection Forum, Moradabad and claimed that he is  a consumer of electricity having connection No.104427 with  sanctioned   load   of   6.5   horse   power.   He   alleged   that   the  Page 6 7 authorities of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. prepared a  th fictitious checking report dated 17  July, 2003 and falsely  implicated   the   complainant   that   he   had   used   more   than 

th April, 2004 followed by a bill No.5004369 dated 15   June,  2004 demanding a sum of Rs.2,11,451/­. He prayed to direct  the   appellant   to   correct   the   bill,   withdraw   the   demand  notice and to pay the costs. The appellant, U.P. State Corporation Ltd. filed the  objections   regarding   maintainability   of   the   above   said  petition.   It   was   alleged   that   the   complainant   had  industrial connection which was disconnected earlier due to  th  the arrears of electricity dues. On a checking held on 17 JUDGMENT March,   2004   by   Sub­Divisional   Officer­II   and   Junior  Engineer, it was found that the L.T. line of three phases  passing   from   the   other   side   of   the   premises   of   the  complainant was tapped with the cables attached with the  meter   though   they   were   disconnected   earlier   and   the  complainant   was   using   full   10   horse   power   load   by  committing theft of electricity by bye­passing the meter.  6.  ase of Rakhi Ghosh C       Page 7 8 Rakhi   Ghosh   claimed   before   the   District   Consumer  Disputes   Redressal   Forum,   at   Suri,   Birbhum,   West   Bengal,  that   he   is   a   consumer   of   electricity     having   Connection 

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 stated that consumer was enjoying  Industrial connection and, therefore, does not fall within  the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986. It was further alleged that a police case being  JUDGMENT th No.19/2005 dated 26  February, 2005 has already been lodged  against   Rakhi   Ghosh   for   theft   of   electricity,   therefore,  the   consumer   forum   has   no   jurisdiction   to   entertain   the  application.  7. Case of Prithvi Pal Singh   Prithvi Pal Singh filed a complaint before the District  Consumer   Protection   Forum­II,   Moradabad     that   he   is   a  consumer having connection No.0102/102474 with a sanctioned  Page 8 9 load   of   6   KW.   It   was   alleged   that   the   U.P.   Power  Corporation Ltd. got his premises inspected by its team and  st subsequently sent a notice to him on 1    December, 2005. 

complainant was committing theft of electricity by making a  cut at the cable prior to meter and was using excess load.  He   challenged   the   bill   raised   by   the   Corporation   for  Rs.1,45,546/­ and prayed for compensation of 10,000/­ for  harassment.  The   appellant,   U.P.   Power   Corporation   Ltd.   filed  objections   and   raised   the   question   of   maintainability   of  the petition. It was alleged that on checking, a cut mark  on three phase cable before the meter was detected by which  JUDGMENT the complainant was committing theft of electricity of 13  KW by bye­passing the meter. A bill for Rs. 1,99,805/­ was  raised  for theft of the electricity.  8. Case of Zulfikar Zulfikar filed a complaint before the District Consumer  Protect   Forum­II,   Moradabad,   challenging   a   notice   of  assessment. He stated that he is a consumer of commercial  Page 9 10 electricity   connection   bearing   No.3293/115275,   the  sanctioned   load   of   which   is   3   KW.   According   to   him   on  receipt   of   notice   he   enquired   about   the   same   to   the 

nd said   checking   report   dated   22   July,   2004   is   false   and  fabricated and no checking was done on the premises of the  complainant.  The   appellant,   U.P.   Power   Corporation   Ltd.   filed  objections raising the question of maintainability of the  complaint on the ground that the complainant Zulfikar had  commercial connection and hence does not fall within the  definition of ‘Consumer'. It was alleged that Enforcement  nd Squad   and   Assistant   Engineer   (Raids)   on   22   July,   2004  JUDGMENT raided   the   premises   of   the   complainant   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  complainant illegally.   They alleged theft of electricity  against the complainant for which an assessment notice was  issued. It was contended that theft of electricity does not  amount   to   deficiency   in   service,   therefore,   the   Consumer  Page 10 11 Forum   does   not   have   the   jurisdiction   to   entertain   the  petition regarding the theft of the electricity under the  Consumer Protection Act.  9. Case of Shahzadey  Alam   Shahzadey   Alam   filed   a   complaint   case   before   the  District   Consumer   Protection   Forum­II,   Moradabad  th  challenging   the   revenue   assessment   notice   dated   9 February, 2005 and requested to pay the compensation for  mental and physical agony. In his petition Shahzadey Alam  stated   that   he   was   consumer   of   electricity   connection  th  No.0832782700,   having   a   sanctioned   load   of   2   KW.   On   20 October, 1986, the officials of the U.P. Power Corporation  JUDGMENT Ltd. disconnected the aforesaid electricity connection for  non­payment   of   Suvidh   Shulka.     As   the   said   electricity  connection was not required for the complainant, he did not  get the same restored. It is alleged that in spite of the  same, the complainant received a notice of assessment on  th 16  February, 2005.  The   appellant,   U.P.   Power   Corporation   Ltd.   on  appearance challenged the maintainability of the petition  Page 11 12 before   the   Consumer   Forum.     It   was   stated   that   the  complainant   had   himself   admitted   that   his   electricity  th connection   was   disconnected   on   20   October,   1986, 

th  was   raided   and   checked   by   the   enforcement   squad   on   24 January, 2005 at 4.10 hours and that it was found that the  complainant was committing theft of electricity by cutting  three phase cable going near his premises to the connection  No.2783/116398 of L.M.V.­II category of Shri Javed and by  connecting it with 15 meters cable and using 4.70 K.W. load  and that no valid connection was found in the premises of  the   complainant.   Therefore,   the   complainant   was   asked   to  deposit compounding fee of Rs.1,02,400/­, but he has not  JUDGMENT deposited   it.   On   the   basis   of   the   report   a   notice   was  issued to the complainant.  10. Case of Atul Kumar Gupta Atul Kumar Gupta filed a complaint before the District  Consumer Protection Forum­II, Moradabad, stating that he is  a consumer of electricity connection No.1034/117269, having  sanctioned   load   of   7.5   KW.   It   is   alleged   that   the  electricity   connection   of   the   complainant   has   been  Page 12 13 th disconnected   on   29   February,   2003   on   the   ground   of  outstanding   electricity   charges.   Later   on,   the   appellant  informed that a case in connection with checking is under 

th that   on   13   March,   2004   he   received   Revenue   assessment  notice alongwith a checking report No.164 dated 1st March,  2004, though no checking was conducted at the premises of  the   complainant   on   1st   March,   2004.   He   prayed   for  th cancellation of the assessment notice dated 10  March, 2004  and claimed compensation of Rs.5,000/­ towards mental agony  and financial loss. The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., in their  reply   raised   the   question   of   maintainability   of   the  JUDGMENT petition   in   view   of   the   fact   that   the   complainant's  th connection was disconnected on 28  February, 2003 and that  on inspection it was found that he was committing theft of  electricity by pilferage of electricity. 11. Case of Tauseef Ahmed   Tauseef   Ahmed   moved   before   the   District   Consumer  Protection   Forum­II,   Moradabad   and   stated   that   he   is   a  consumer   of   electricity   having   connection   No.115694   with  Page 13 14 sanctioned load of 2 KW.   He alleged that three employees  of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. visited his premises.  Out   of   them   one   represented   himself   to   be   the   Junior 

th th 8   September, 2004 along with a report dated 11   August,  2004     and     a   bill   for   Rs.1,94,382/­   was   raised.     He  challenged the bill before the District Forum. The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on appearance raised  the question of maintainability of the petition, one of the  grounds taken was that the complainant 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  JUDGMENT summons has already been issued and the matter is pending.  It   was   alleged   that   the   premises   of   the   claimant   was  th checked   on   11   August,   2004   in   the   presence   of   the  complainant and on checking it was found that 6.945 KW of  electricity had been illegally used instead of sanctioned  load of 2 KW. It was brought to the notice of the Forum  that use of excess load than the sanctioned electric load  for   any   other   purpose   for   which   connection   has   been  Page 14 15 granted,   comes   within   the   meaning   of     "pilferage   of  electricity” as defined under U.P. Electricity (Consumers)  Regulation, 1984 for which notice of assessment was sent to 

st vide order dated 1  October, 2004.  12. Case of Mohd. Yunus   Mohd.   Yunus   filed   a   complaint   before   the   District  Consumer Protection Forum­II, Moradabad claiming to be   a  consumer   of   commercial   electricity   having   connection  No.2701/0­98494,   with   sanctioned   load   of   5   KW.   It   was  th  alleged that on the basis of a checking report dated 17 st November, 2004 revenue assessment notice dated 1  February,  2005 was served on him.  He sought for a copy of the report  JUDGMENT and came to know that Junior Engineer had sent   a false  checking report   to the Divisional Office because of non­ payment of monthly "Suvidha Sulk" by the complainant. He  st challenged the revenue assessment notice dated 1  February,  2005   and   claimed   compensation   of   Rs.10,000/­   for   mental  suffering and financial loss.   The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on appearance raised  the   question   of   maintainability   of   the   petition.   It   was  Page 15 16 stated   that   the   complainant   is   a   consumer   of   L.M.V.­II  category     using   electricity   for     commercial   purposes,  therefore,   he   does   not   fall   under   the   definition   of 

November,   2004   on   checking   of   the   premises   of   the  complainant   by   Sub­Divisional   Officer­II,   Moradabad   and  Junior Engineer it was found that the complainant was using  the   connection   for   industrial   purposes   under   L.M.V.­6  category   without   any   prior   consent   of   the   U.P.   Power  Corporation   Ltd.   He   was   using   electrical   energy   for   the  purposes   other   than   the   purpose   for   which   it   was  sanctioned.     Therefore, the complainant was found to be  guilty of pilferage of electricity. JUDGMENT 13. All the cases against the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.  were filed before the District Consumer Protection Forum­ II, Moradabad. The decision having given in  favour of the  complainants, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd moved before the  State   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Uttar  st  Pradesh,   Lucknow   which   by   its   common   judgment   dated   31 January, 2007/Ist February, 2007 dismissed all the revision  petitions filed by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Page 16 17 14. 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 

Submissions: 15.  Learned counsel for the appellants contended as under: (a) The proceedings under Sections126,  127, 135 etc.  of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003   initiated   by   the   service  providers are not related to deficiency of service in the  supply of electricity by the service providers under the  Electricity Act, 2003.   Therefore, the complaints against  the proceedings under Section 126, 127, 135 etc.   of the  Electricity Act, 2003 are not maintainable before the Forum  JUDGMENT constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (b) In absence of any inconsistency between Sections  126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the  provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 173  and 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not attracted.  16. Per contra, according to the respondents, a complaint  under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the final  assessment   order   passed   under   Section   126   of   the  Page 17 18 Electricity Act, 2003 is maintainable before the Consumer  Forum.  17. To determine the question, it would be appropriate to 

below: “STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The   Consumer   Protection   Bill,   1986  seeks   to   provide   for   better   protection   of  the   interests   of   consumers   and   for   the  purpose,   to   make   provision   for   the  establishment of Consumer councils and other  authorities   for   the   settlement   of   consumer  disputes and for matter connected therewith. 2.  It   seeks,   inter   alia,   to   promote   and  protect the rights of consumers such as­ (a)the right to be protected against marketing of  goods which are hazardous to life and property; (b)the   right   to   be   informed   about   the   quality,  quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of  goods   to   protect   the   consumer   against   unfair  trade practices; JUDGMENT (c)the   right   to   be   assured,   wherever   possible,  access   to   an   authority   of   goods   at   competitive  prices; (d)the right to be heard and to be assured that  consumers   interests   will   receive   due  consideration at appropriate forums; (e)the   right   to   seek   redressal   against   unfair  trade   practices   or   unscrupulous   exploitation   of  consumers; and Page 18 19 (f)right to consumer education. 3.  These objects are sought to be promoted  and   protected   by   the   Consumer   Protection  Council to be established at the Central and  State level.

     Scope of consumer complaint 18. “Consumer dispute" is defined under Section 2(e) of the  Consumer Protection Act,1986  in the following manner: " 2(e)   “consumer   dispute”   means   a   dispute  where   the   person   against   whom   a   complaint  has   been   made,   denies   or   disputes   the  allegations contained in the complaint.” JUDGMENT Therefore, for a valid consumer dispute an assertion  and denial of a valid complaint is must.  19. “Complaint" is defined under Section 2(1) (c) of the  Consumer Protection Act,1986  in the following manner: "2(1)(c)  "complaint" means any allegation in  writing made by a complainant that­ Page 19 20 (i)an   unfair   trade   practice   or   a   restrictive  trade practice has been adopted by (any trader or  service provider ; (ii)the   goods   bought   by   him   or   agreed   to   be  bought by him suffer from one or more defects;

(iv)a trader or the service provider, as the case  may   be,   has   charged   for   the   goods   or   for   the  services mentioned in the complaint, a price in  excess of the price­ (a)fixed by or under any law for the time being  in force; (b)displayed   on   the   goods   or   any   package  containing such goods; (c)displayed on the price list exhibited by him  by or under any law for the time being inforce; (d)agreed between the parties; (v)   goods   which   will   be   hazardous   to   life  and safety when used, are being­offered for  sale to the public­ JUDGMENT (a)in contravention of any standard relating to  safety of such goods as required to be complied  with, by or under any law for the time being in  force; (b)if   the   trader   could   have   known   with   due  diligence that the goods so offered are unsafe to  the public;  (vi) services which are hazardous or likely  to be hazardous to life and safety of the  public when used, are being offered by the  service   provider   which   such   person   could  Page 20 21 have   known   with   due   diligence   to   be  injurious to life and safety; with a view to obtaining any relief provided  by or under this Act;"

aspects that a consumer complaint can be filed viz. *   Unfair   trade   practice   or   restrictive   trade  practice. *  When there is a defective goods. *  Deficiency in services * Hazardous goods *  Hazardous services  *   a price in excess of the price fixed under any  law etc.  JUDGMENT 20. Deficiency of service is defined under Section 2(g) of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner: "2(g)   “deficiency”means   any   fault,  imperfection,   shortcoming   or   inadequacy   in  the   quality,   nature   and   manner   of  performance   which   is   required   to   be  maintained by or under any law for the time  being in force or has been undertaken to be  performed   by   a   person   in   pursuance   of   a  contract   or   otherwise   in   relation   to   any  service." Page 21 22 Therefore, it is clear that nature of transaction under  Section 126 does not come within the ambit of “complaint". 21. Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 

(i)a consumer; or (ii)any voluntary consumer association registered  under the Companies Act,1956 (1of 1956) or under  any other law for the time being in force; or (iii)the   Central   Government   or   any   State  Government; or (iv)one   or   more   consumers,   where   there   are  numerous consumers having the same interest; (v)in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir  or   representative;     who   or   which   makes   a  complaint;” 22. Whereas "consumer" is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of  JUDGMENT the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner: "2(1)(d)  "consumer" means any person who­ (i) buys any goods for a consideration which  has been paid or promised or partly paid and  partly   promised,   or   under   any   system   of  deferred   payment   and   includes   any   user   of  such   goods   other   than   the   person   who   buys  such   goods   for   consideration   paid   or  promised or partly paid or partly promised,  or   under   any   system   of   deferred   payment,  when such use is made with the approval of  such person, but does not include a person  who obtains such goods for resale or for any  commercial purpose; or Page 22 23

Explanation .­For   the   purposes   of   this  clause,   "commercial   purpose"   does   not  include use by a person of goods bought and  used   by   him   and   services   availed   by   him  exclusively for the purposes of earning his  livelihood by means of self­employment;" From   a   bare   reading   of   the   section   aforesaid   it   is  clear   that   person(s)   availing   services   for   'commercial  purpose' do not fall within the meaning of “consumer" and  cannot   be   a   "complainant”   for   the   purpose   of   filing   a  JUDGMENT "complaint" before the Consumer Forum.  23. “Service”   as   defined   under   Section   2(1)(o)   of   the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 includes supply of electrical  or other energy and reads as follows: “2(1)(o)" service"   means   service   of   any  description which is made       available to  potential   (users   and   includes,   but   not  limited to, the provision of) facilities in  connection   with   banking,   financing  insurance, transport, processing,  supply of  electrical   or   other   energy ,   board   or  Page 23 24

2(1) (d) may file a valid complaint in respect of supply  of electrical or other energy, if the complaint contains  allegation of unfair trade practice or restrictive trade  practice;   or   there   is   a   defective   goods;   deficiency   in  services; hazardous services or a price in excess of the  price fixed by or under any law etc.  Maintainability of complaint filed by the respondents. 24. From the facts narrated in the preceding paragraph it  is clear that Anis Ahmed, Rakhi Ghosh, Prithvi Pal Singh,  Zulfikar, Shahzadey Alam, Atul Kumar Gupta, Tauseef Ahmed  JUDGMENT and   Mohd.   Yunus   had   electrical   connections   for  industrial/commercial purpose and, therefore, they do not  come   within   the   meaning   of   "consumer"   as   defined   under  Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; they  cannot be treated as “complainant” nor they are entitled to  file any "complaint" before the Consumer Forum.   25. Admittedly,   the   complainants   made   their   grievance  against final order of assessment passed under Section 126  Page 24 25 of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003.   None   of   the   respondents  alleged that the appellant(s) used unfair trade practice or  a   restrictive   trade   practice   or   there   is   deficiency   in 

etc.     In   absence   of   any   allegation   as   stipulated   under  Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, their  complaints were not maintainable.  26. Therefore,   we   hold   that   the   complaint   filed   by   the  respondents   were   not   maintainable   before   the   Consumer  Forum.  Maintainability   of   a   complaint   before   the   Consumer   Forum  against final order of assessment made under Section 126 of  the Electricity Act, 2003 or action taken under Sections  135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 27. Section   2(15)   of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003   defines  JUDGMENT ‘consumer’ in the following manner: "2(15).   "consumer" means any person who is  supplied with electricity for his own use by  a licensee or the Government or by any other  person engaged in the business of supplying  electricity to the public under this Act or  any other law for the time being in force  and includes any person whose premises are  for the time being connected for the purpose  of receiving electricity with the works of a  licensee,   the   Government   or   such   other  person, as the case may be;” 28. From a bare reading of section aforesaid we find that  the "consumer" as defined under Section 2(15) includes any  Page 25 26 person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by  a licensee and also includes any person whose premises are  for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving 

for his own use or not.   Per contra under Section 2(1)(d)  of   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986   those   who   were  supplied with electricity for commercial purpose and those  who do not avail services for consideration, irrespective  of   electricity   connection   in   their   premises   do   not   come  within the meaning of  "consumer". 29. Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the  assessing   officer   to   make   assessment   in   case   of  “unauthorized use of electricity".  It provides that if on  JUDGMENT an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection  of   the   equipments,   gadgets,   machines,   devices   found  connected   or   used,   or   after   inspection   of   records  maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to  the   conclusion   that   such   person   is   indulging   in  "unauthorized   use   of   electricity",   he   shall   assess   the  electricity charges payable by such person or by any other  person benefitted by such use, the Section reads as under: Page 26 27

(2)   The   order   of   provisional   assessment  shall   be   served   upon   the   person   in  occupation or possession or in charge of the  place or premises in such manner as may be  prescribed. (3) The person, on whom an order has been  served   under   subsection   (2)   shall   be  entitled to file objections, if any, against  the   provisional   assessment   before   the  assessing   officer,   who   shall,   after  affording   a   reasonable   opportunity   of  hearing to such person, pass a final order  of   assessment   within   thirty   days   from   the  date of service of such order of provisional  assessment,   of   the   electricity   charges  payable by such person. JUDGMENT (4)   Any   person   served   with   the   order   of  provisional   assessment,   may,   accept   such  assessment   and   deposit   the   assessed   amount  with   the   licensee   within   seven   days   of  service of such provisional assessment order  upon him. (5) If the assessing officer reaches to the  conclusion   that   unauthorized   use   of  electricity has taken place, the assessment  shall be made for the entire period during  which   such   unauthorized   use   of   electricity  has taken place and if, however, the period  during   which   such   unauthorized   use   of  electricity   has   taken   place   cannot   be  ascertained, such period shall be limited to  Page 27 28 a   period   of   twelve   months   immediately  preceding the date of inspection. 

(a)   “   assessing   officer”   means   an  officer   of   a   State   Government   or   Board   or  licensee, as the case may be, designated as  such by the State Government; (b) “ unauthorised use of electricity”  means the usage of electricity – (i)by any artificial means; or (ii)by   a  means   not   authorised   by   the   concerned  person or authority or licensee; or (iii)through a tampered meter; or (iv)for   the   purpose   other   than   for   which   the  usage of electricity was authorized; or (v)for the premises or areas other than those for  which the supply of electricity was authorized.” JUDGMENT  30. Section   145   of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003   bars   the  jurisdiction   of   Civil   Court   to   entertain   any   suit   or  proceeding   in   respect   of   any   matter   which   an   assessing  officer referred to in Section 126.   A separate provision  of appeal to the appellate authority has been prescribed  under Section 127 so that any person aggrieved by the final  order made under Section 126, may within thirty days of the  said order, prefer an appeal, which reads as under: Page 28 29

(3) The appellate authority referred to in  sub­section (1) shall dispose of the appeal  after   hearing   the   parties   and   pass  appropriate order and send copy of the order  to the assessing officer and the appellant. (4)   The   order   of   the   appellate   authority  referred to in sub­section (1) passed under  sub­section (3) shall be final. (5)   No   appeal   shall   lie   to   the   appellate  authority   referred   to   in   sub   –section   (1)  against   the   final   order   made   with   the  consent of the parties. JUDGMENT (6) When a person defaults in making payment  of assessed amount, he, in addition to the  assessed amount, shall be liable to pay, on  the expiry of thirty days from the date of  order of assessment, an amount of interest  at the rate of sixteen per cent per annum  compounded every six months.” Therefore, it is clear that after notice of provisional  assessment to the   person indulged in unauthorized use of  electricity,   the   final   decision   by   an   assessing   officer,  Page 29 30 who is a public servant, on the assessment of "unauthorized  use of electricity”is a “Quasi Judicial” decision and does  not   fall   within   the   meaning   of   “consumer   dispute”   under 

“offences   and   penalties".     If   Section   126   is   read   with  Section 135 to 140 it will be clear that various acts of  "unauthorized   use   of   electricity”   constitute   “offences”  mentioned under Sections 135 to 140 and attracts sentence  and fine as prescribed therein.  32. For proper appreciation, we refer to Section 135 which  relates   to   “theft   of   electricity".     Interference   with  meters or work of licensee, t aping   of electricity, making  or   causing   to   be   made   any   connection   with   overhead,  JUDGMENT underground   or   under   water   lines   or   cables,   or   service  wires, or service facilities of a licensee; tampering of  meter,   installation   or   use   of   tampered   meter,   loop  connection or any other device or method which interferes  with   accurate   or   proper   registration,   calibration   or  metering   of   electric   current   or   otherwise   results   in   a  manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; damaging or  destroys of an electrical meter, apparatus, equipment, use  Page 30 31 of electricity through a tampered meter; use of electricity  for   the   purpose   other   than   for   which   the   usage   of  electricity   was   authorized   constitute   "theft   of 

“135.   Theft   of   electricity.­   (1)   Whoever,  dishonestly,­­ (a)taps,   makes   or   causes   to   be   made   any  connection   with   overhead,   underground   or   under  water   lines   or   cables,   or   service   wires,   or  service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as  the case may be; or (b)tampers a meter, installs or uses a  tampered   meter,   current   reversing  transformer,   loop   connection   or   any  other device or method which interferes  with   accurate   or   proper   registration,  calibration   or   metering   of   electric  current   or   otherwise   results   in   a  manner whereby electricity is stolen or  wasted; or JUDGMENT (c)   damages   or   destroys   an   electric  meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or  causes or allows any of them to be so  damaged   or   destroyed   as   to   interfere  with the proper or accurate metering of  electricity; or (d) uses electricity through a tampered  meter; or (e)   uses   electricity   for   the   purpose  other   than   for   which   the   usage   of  electricity was authorised, so   as   to   abstract   or   consume   or   use  electricity   shall   be   punishable   with  Page 31 32 imprisonment for a term which may extend to  three years or with fine or with both:

(ii)   exceeds   10   Kilowatt,   the   fine  imposed   on   first   conviction   shall   not  be less than three times the financial  gain   on   account   of   such   theft   of  electricity and in the event of second  or subsequent conviction, the sentence  shall   be   imprisonment   for   a   term   not  less   than   six   months,   but   which   may  extend to five years and with fine not  less than six times the financial gain  on   account   of   such   theft   of  electricity: JUDGMENT Provided further that in the event of  second and subsequent conviction of a person  where the load abstracted, consumed, or used  or   attempted   abstraction   or   attempted  consumption   or   attempted   use   exceeds   10  kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred  from getting any supply of electricity for a  period   which   shall   not   be   less   than   three  months but may extend to two years and shall  also   be   debarred   from   getting   supply   of  electricity for that period from any other  source or generating station: Provided   also   that   if   it   is   provided  that   any   artificial   means   or   means   not  authorised   by   the   Board   or   licensee   or  supplier, as the case may be, exist for the  Page 32 33 abstraction,   consumption   or   use   of  electricity   by   the   consumer,   it   shall   be  presumed, until the contrary is proved, that  any   abstraction,   consumption   or   use   of  electricity   has   been   dishonestly   caused   by  such consumer.

Provided that only such officer of the  licensee or supplier, as authorised for the  purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any  other officer of the licensee or supplier,  as the case may be, of the rank higher than  the rank so authorised shall disconnect the  supply line of electricity: Provided   further   that   such   officer   of  the   licensee   or   supplier,   as   the   case   may  be,   shall   lodge   a   complaint   in   writing  relating to the commission of such offence  in police station having jurisdiction within  twenty   four   hour   from   the   time   of   such  disconnect: Provided   also   that   the   licensee   or  supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or  payment   of   the   assessed   amount   or  electricity   charges   in   accordance   with   the  provisions   of   this   Act,   shall,   without  prejudice   to   the   obligation   to   lodge   the  complaint   as   referred   to   in   the   second  proviso to this clause., restore the supply  line of electricity within forty­eight hours  of such deposit or payment;] JUDGMENT (2) Any officer of the licensee or supplier  as   the   case   may   be,   authorised   in   this  behalf by the State Government may­­ (a)   enter,   inspect,   break   open   and  search any place or premises in which  he   has   reason   to   believe   that  electricity   [has   been   or   is   being],  used unauthorisedly; Page 33 34 (b) search, seize and remove all such  devices,   instruments,   wires   and   any  other facilitator or article which [has  been   or   is   being],   used   for  unauthorised use of electricity;

(3)  The occupant of the place of search or  any   person   on   his   behalf   shall   remain  present during the search and a list of all  things seized in the course of such search  shall   be   prepared   and   delivered   to   such  occupant or person who shall sign the list: Provided that no inspection, search and  seizure of any domestic places or domestic  premises shall be carried out between sunset  and   sunrise   except   in   the   presence   of   an  adult male member occupying such premises. (4)  The provisions of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,   1973   (2   of   1974),   relating   to  search   and   seizure   shall   apply,   as   far   as  may be, to searches and seizure under this  Act.” JUDGMENT 33. "Theft   of   electric   lines   and   materials”   constitute  offence   under   Section   136;   whereas   "receiving   stolen  property"   constitute   offence   under   Section   137.  Interference   with   meters   or   works   of   licensee  unauthorisedly connecting any meter, indicator or apparatus  with   any   electric   line;   unauthorise   reconnection   of   any  Page 34 35 meter, indicator or apparatus with electric line or other  works;   laying   or   causing   to   be   laid,   or   connecting   any  works for the purpose of communicating with any other works 

constitute   “offences”   which   attracts   punishment   under  Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.   Section 138 of  the Electricity Act reads as follows:   “ 138.Interference with meters or works of  licensee.­ (1) Whoever,­ (a) unauthorisedly connects any meter,  indicator   or   apparatus   with   any  electric line through which electricity  is   supplied   by   a   licensee   or  disconnects   the   same   from   any   such  electric line; or (b)   unauthorisedly   reconnects   any  meter, indicator or apparatus with any  electric line or other works being the  property   of   a   licensee   when   the   said  electric   line   or   other   works   has   or  have been cut or disconnected; or JUDGMENT (c)   lays   or   causes   to   be   laid,   or  connects up any works for the purpose  of   communicating   with   any   other   works  belonging to a licensee; or (d)   maliciously   injures   any   meter,  indicator, or apparatus belonging to a  licensee   or   willfully   or   fraudulently  alters   the   index   of   any   such   meter,  indicator or apparatus or prevents any  such meter, indicator or apparatus from  duly registering; Page 35 36

34. Clause   (b)   of   the   Explanation   below   Section   126,  defines "unauthorized use of electricity"  as the usage of  electricity   by   any   artificial   means;   or   by   a   means   not  authorized   by   the   concerned   person   or   authority   or  JUDGMENT licensee; or through a tampered meter; or for the purpose  other   than   for   which   the   usage   of   electricity   was  authorized; or for the premises or areas other than those  for which the supply of electricity was authorized.  All   the   aforesaid   acts   constitute   “offences”   under  Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as noticed  above.  Page 36 37 35. From a bare reading of Section 126 and Sections 135 to  140, it is clear that while acts of "unauthorized use of  electricity" attracts civil consequence of penal charge of 

the very same acts of "unauthorized use of electricity",  constitute "offences" under Section 135 to 140 for which  sentence and fine has been prescribed.   36. As   per   Section   153   of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003,  Special Courts are to be constituted for speedy trial for  the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140.  The said  Section reads as follows: “1 53.   Constitution   of   Special   Courts.­   (1)  The State Government may, for the purposes  of   providing   speedy   trial   of   offences  referred   to   in   [sections   135   to   140   and  section   150],   by   notification   in   the  Official Gazette, constitute as many Special  Courts as may be necessary for such area or  areas,   as   may   be   specified   in   the  notification. JUDGMENT (2) A Special Court shall consist of a  single Judge who shall be appointed by the  State Government with the concurrence of the  High Court. (3) A person shall not be qualified for  appointment   as   a   judge   of   a   Special   Court  unless   he   was,   immediately   before   such  appointment,   an   Additional   District   and  Sessions Judge. Page 37 38

(b) where there is no such other Judge  available,   in   accordance   with   the  direction   of   District   and   Sessions  Judge   having   jurisdiction   over   the  oridinary   place   of   sitting   of   Special  Court,   as   notified   under   sub­section  (1).” 37. The Civil Court's jurisdiction to consider a suit with  respect to the  decision of assessing officer under Section  126, or decision of appellate authority under Section 127  is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act,2003 ,  which reads as under: JUDGMENT .  “145 Civil Court not to have jurisdiction.­  No   civil   court   shall   have   jurisdiction   to  entertain any suit or proceeding in respect  of   any   matter   which   an   assessing   officer  referred to in Section 126 or an Appellate  Authority referred to in Section 127 or the  adjudicating   officer   appointed   under   this  Act   is   empowered   by   or   under   this   Act   to  determine and no injunction shall be granted  by any court or other authority in respect  of   any   action   taken   or   to   be   taken   in  pursuance of any power conferred by or under  this Act.” 38. The   National   Commission   placed   much   reliance   on   sub  sections (5) and (6) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act,  Page 38 39 2003 to derive power to adjudicate dispute arising out of  Section 126, but it failed to notice that Section 42 of the  Electricity   Act,   2003   is   not   applicable   in   the   case   of 

39. Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the  Appropriate Commission to grant a licence to any person to  "transmit   electricity"   or   "to   distribute   electricity"   or  "to   undertake   trading   in   electricity",     the   relevant  portion of Section 14  reads as follows: “14. Grant   of   licence.­     The   Appropriate  Commission may, on an application made to it  under Section 15,   grant a licence to any  person – (a) to   transmit   electricity   as   a   transmission  licensee; or (b) to   distribute   electricity   as   a   distribution  licensee; or (c) to   undertake   trading   in   electricity   as   an  electricity trader,                      in any area as may be specified in  the licence .” 40. Amongst   the   three   categories   of   licensee(s)  JUDGMENT viz.“transmission   licensee";   "distribution   licensee"   and  the   "licensee   to   undertake   trading   in   electricity",   the  provisions   with   respect   to   "distribution   licensees"   have  been provided under Part VI of the Electricity Act, 2003  but not the two other licensees.   Bare perusal of Part VI  Page 39 40 and   Section   42   of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003   makes   it  further clear.  The same is quoted hereunder: “ Part VI

JUDGMENT Page 40 41 (3)   Where   any   person,   whose   premises   are   situated  within the area of supply of a distribution licensee,  (not being a local authority engaged in the business  of   distribution   of   electricity   before   the   appointed  date)   requires   a   supply   of   electricity   from   a  generating   company   or   any   licensee   other   than   such  distribution   licensee,   such   person   may,   by   notice,  require   the   distribution   licensee   for   wheeling   such  electricity in accordance with regulations made by the  State   Commission   and   the  d uties   of   the   distribution  licensee   with   respect   to   such   supply   shall   be   of   a  common   carrier   providing   non­discriminatory   open  access. (4)   Where the State Commission permits a consumer or  class   of   consumers   to   receive   supply   of   electricity  from a person other than the distribution licensee of  his area of supply, such consumer shall be liable to  pay   an   additional   surcharge   on   the   charges   of  wheeling, as may be specified by the State Commission,  to meet the fixed cost of such distribution licensee  arising out of his obligation to supply.  (5)   Every   distribution   licensee   shall,   within   six  months   from  the  appointed   date   or   date   of   grant  of   licence, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for  redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance  with the guidelines as may be specified by the State  Commission. (6)  Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non­redressal of  his   grievances   under   sub­section   (5),   may   make   a  representation for the redressal of his grievance to  an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed  or disignated by the State Commission. (7)   The Ombudsman shall settle the grievance of the  consumer within such time and in such manner as may be  specified by the State Commission. (8)   The provisions of sub­sections (5), (6) and (7)  shall be without prejudice to right which the consumer  may have apart from the rights conferred upon him by  those sub­sections.” 41. Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the  JUDGMENT State Commission to specify an Electricity Supply Code to  provide for recovery of electricity charges, intervals for  billing   of   electricity   charges,   measures   for   preventing  Page 41 42 damage   to   electrical   plant   or   electrical   line   or   meter,  entry   of   distribution   licensee   etc.,   and   it   reads   as  follows:

Electricity   Supply   Code   provisions   are   to   be   made   for  recovery   of   electricity   charges,   billing   of   electricity  charges,   disconnection   etc.   and   measures   for   preventing  tampering, distress or damage to the electrical plant or  JUDGMENT line   or   meter   etc.     But   the   said   code   need   not   provide  provisions relating to it do not relate to assessment of  charges for “unauthorized use of electricity” under Section  126   or   action   to   be   taken   against   those   committing  'offences'   under   Sections   135   to   140   of   the   Electricity  Act, 2003. Page 42 43 42. Limitation   under   Section   173,174   and   175   of   the  Electricity   Act,   2003   is   only   qua   the   scope   of   Consumer  Protection Act, which read as under:

  174. Act to have overriding effect. ­   Save  as   otherwise   provided   in   section   173,   the  provisions   of   this   Act   shall   have   effect  notwithstanding   anything   inconsistent  therewith contained in any other law for the  time   being   in   force   or   in   any   instrument  having effect by virtue of any law other than  this Act. 175.   Provisions of this Act to be in addition  to   and   not   in   derogation   of   other   laws.   ­  The  p rovisions   of this Act are in addition to  and not in derogation of any other law for  the time being in force.” JUDGMENT 43. The inconsistency would arise only if the provisions of  the Electricity Act, 2003  run counter to the provisions of  the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986   or   if   while   enforcing  provision on one statute, provisions of other statute is  violated.   We find that the entire object and reasons of  Page 43 44 Consumer   Protection   Act   is   not   crossed   over   by   the  Electricity Act, 2003 and whenever such situation arise the  Electricity   Act,   2003   has   left   the   option   open   for   the 

th 10   April,   2008   referring   to   Section   3   of   the   Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 and Sections 173, 174 and 175 of the  Electricity Act, 2003 held as follows: “A   bare   reading   of   the   aforesaid   Sections  makes it abundantly clear that –  (i) The intention of the Parliament is not to bar  the jurisdiction of the consumer fora under the CP  Act. The Electricity Act also impliedly does not  bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora; (ii) On the contrary, it saves the provisions of  Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Atomic Energy Act,  1962 and the Railways Act, 1989; JUDGMENT (iii) By non­obstante clause, it has been provided  that if anything in the Electricity Act, Rules or  Regulations is inconsistent with any provisions of  the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   it   shall   have   no  effect; and (iv) Provisions   of   the   Electricity   Act   are   in  addition to and not in derogation of any other law   for the time being in force.  The act supplements  the existing redressal forum, namely, the Consumer  Fora.” Page 44 45 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 

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  JUDGMENT Act, 1986.  46. 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  Page 45 46 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 

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.   47.  In view of the observation made above, we hold that: (i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity  JUDGMENT Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the  provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but  ipso facto  it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the  power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters  which do not come within the meaning of “service” as  defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint”as defined  under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act,  1986.   Page 46 47 (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 

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  JUDGMENT 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”.   48. For   the   reasons   as   mentioned   above,   we   have   no  hesitation   in   setting   aside   the   orders   passed   by   the  National Commission.  They are accordingly set aside.  All  Page 47 48 the   appeals   filed   by   the   service   provider­licensee   are  allowed, however, no order as to costs. 

……………………………………………………….J.               (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI,  JULY 1, 2013. JUDGMENT Page 48