Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Anr Vs. Anwar Ali  Insc 1025 (9 October 2007)
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam
out of S.L.P. (C) No.25840 of 2004) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in
short the National Commission).
appellants had questioned correctness of the findings recorded by the District
Consumer Forum, Ranchi (in short District Forum)
and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (in short the State
Commission) before the National Commission.
basic grievance of the respondent was that the electricity supply was
discontinued without notice.
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
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 Act) has not been
considered by the National Commission.
Stand of the appellants is that the definition of Consumer as defined
in Section 2(o) of the Act does not cover a consumer of electricity.
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.
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
complaint is defined to mean allegation in writing made by a 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) consumer 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 deficiency 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
goods is defined under Section 2(i) to mean goods as defined in the
Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Service 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.
above position was noted in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Mam Chand (2006
(4) SCC 649).
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
Consumer 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.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.