Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4734 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Anr
RESPONDENT:
Anwar Ali
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/10/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25840 of 2004)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi (in short \021the National Commission\022).
3. The appellants had questioned correctness of the findings
recorded by the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi (in short
\021District Forum\022) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (in short \021the State
Commission\022) before the National Commission.
4. The basic grievance of the respondent was that the
electricity supply was discontinued without notice.
Compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded along with 12%
interest per annum by the District Forum and upheld by the
State Commission. The National Commission took the view
that since notice was given after disconnection, the action was
clearly unsustainable.
5. In support of the appeal, leaned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the District Forum, the State Commission and
the National Commission failed to appreciate that the notice of
disconnection was given on 20.12.1999 and the disconnection
was made on 29.1.2000. Additionally, it was submitted that
whether the consumer of electricity can be covered under the
provisions of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 (in short the
\021Act\022) has not been considered by the National Commission.
6. Stand of the appellants is that the definition of
\021Consumer\022 as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act does not cover
a consumer of electricity.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that the District Forum, the State Commission and
the National Commission have categorically found that no
notice was given prior to disconnection and the respondent
has taken a categorical stand that the notice dated 20.12.1999
has not been served on him.
8. In this case we are concerned with the scope and extent
of the beneficial consumer jurisdiction, particularly with
regard to technical subjects falling under provisions such as
the Electricity Act, 2003. Under Section 2(c) of the Act
\023complaint\024 is defined to mean allegation in writing made by a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
complainant that the service provider has charged for the
services, a price in excess of the price fixed under the law for
the time being in force [See: Section 2(c) (iv)]. Under Section
2(d) \023consumer\024 is defined to mean any person who hires or
avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid
or promised or partly paid and partly promised. Under Section
2(g) of the Act the word \023deficiency\024 is defined to mean 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
under a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The
word \023goods\024 is defined under Section 2(i) to mean goods as
defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. \023Service\024 also defined
under Section 2(o) of the Act to mean service of any
description which is made available to users in connection
with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing,
supply of electrical energy, entertainment etc. Therefore,
supply of electric energy by the Nigam falls under Section 2(o)
of the Act. However, the question which arises for
determination and which has not been decided is : whether
the beneficial consumer jurisdiction extends to determination
of tortuous acts and liability arising therefrom by the
Consumer Forum. In this connection, it is urged on behalf of
the Nigam that assessment of the duty for unauthorized use of
electricity, tampering of meters, distribution of meters and
calibration of electric current are matters of technical nature
which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum. It is urged
that under the Electricity Act, 2003 the jurisdiction of the civil
court is excluded. In this connection reliance was placed on
Section 145 of the said 2003 Act under which the jurisdiction
of the civil court to entertain suits in respect of matters falling
under Section 126 is expressly barred. These are mattes of
assessment. It is stated that the 2003 Act is a complete Code
by itself and, therefore, in matters of assessment of electricity
bills the Consumer Forum should have directed the
respondent to move before the competent authority under the
Electricity Act, 2003 read with rules framed thereunder either
expressly or by incorporation.
9. The above position was noted in Haryana State Electricity
Board v. Mam Chand (2006 (4) SCC 649).
10. In view of the fact that the National Commission has not
addressed the question as to whether consumer of electricity
is covered by the definition of \021Consumer\022 as defined in Section
2(o) of the Act, we set aside the impugned order and remit the
matter to the National Commission to record a positive finding
on the aspect. It shall also take into consideration the dispute
raised regarding the alleged service of notice dated
20.12.1999.
11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no
order as to costs.