2009 Supreme(SC) 197

2009(1) Supreme 762
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1879 of 2003
Decided on : 09-02-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
The expression ‘supply’ is not synonym for ‘sale’.
While defining ‘person’ in Section 2(1)(m) of Consumer Protection Act,1986, Legislature never intended to exclude a juristic person like company. A company is a person within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(m) of Act of 1986.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 3, 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(m) — Respondent Company engaged in activity of manufacture of iron products applied for supply of electrical energy (2500 KVA) to appellant Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation —Sanction of supply of electric energy 1500 KVA by KPTC — However non supply of electric energy within time prescribed inspite of deposit of amount for the same by company as per demand — Complaint filed by company claiming damages in the sum of Rs.99,900/- for delay in supply of electricity — Preliminary objection thereagainst by KPTC on plea that complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was engaged in commercial activity and electricity being goods; sale of goods to a commercial consumer for a commercial purpose was outside the scope of Act, 1986 — District Forum persuaded by objection raised by KPTC held that complaints were not maintainable — Appeal — State Commission set aside order of District Forum and held that complaints were maintainable being covered by the definition of “Consumer” under the provisions of the Act, 1986 — Revision petition — Dismissed by National Commission — Appeal — Contention of KPTC that Company was excluded from the definition of `person’ since the object of the Act, 1986 was to provide an affordable remedy to individuals or four categories of collectivities or associations of individuals which may constitute legal entities for suing or being sued — Section 3 of Act, 1986 upon which reliance is placed by KPTC provides that provisions of Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force — This provision instead of helping contention of KPTC rather suggests that access to remedy provided to Act of 1986 is an addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force — It does not in any way give any clue to restrict the definition of the `person’ — Section 2(1)(m), being , an interpretation clause, must have been intended by the Legislature to be taken into account in construing the expression `person’ as it occurs in Section 2(1)(d) — While defining `person’ in Section 2(1)(m), Legislature never intended to exclude a juristic person like Company — Held definition of `person’ in Section 2(1)(m) is inclusive and not exhaustive — Hence held that company is a person within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(m). (Paras 15, 17 and 18)

        Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(i), 2(1)(o) — Respondent Company engaged in activity of manufacture of iron products applied for supply of electrical energy (2500 KVA) to appellant Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation — Sanction of supply of electric energy 1500 KVA by KPTC –Non supply of electric energy within time prescribed — Complaint filed by company for delay in supply of electricity — Preliminary objection thereagainst by KPTC on plea that complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within definition of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, 1986 since it purchased electrical energy from the KPTC for commercial production — Held as indicated in the definition of ‘service’, the provision of facilities in connection with supply of electrical energy is a service — Supply of electricity by the Board or for that matter KPTC to a consumer would be covered under Section 2(1)(o) being ‘service’ and if the supply of electrical energy to a consumer is not provided in time as is agreed upon, then under Section (2)(1)(g), there may be a case for deficiency in service — Contention of KPTC was founded on erroneous assumption that supply of electricity is a sale of electricity and the use of expression ‘supply’ was synonym for ‘sale’ — However held , that supply of electricity to a consumer by KPTC was not sale of electricity — The expression ‘supply’ is not synonym for ‘sale’ — Complaint made by company before District Forum could not be said to be not maintainable — Complaint held maintainable. (Paras 22 to 27)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Respondent Company engaged in activity of manufacture of iron products applied for supply of electrical energy (2500 KVA) to appellant Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation herein in the instant case. Complaint filed by company claiming damages in the sum of Rs.99,900/- for delay in supply of electricity on non supply of electric energy within time prescribed inspite of deposit of amount for the same by company as per demand. Preliminary objection thereagainst by KPTC on plea that on plea that complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within definition of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, 1986 since it purchased electrical energy from the KPTC for commercial production .District Forum persuaded by objection raised by KPTC held that complaints were not maintainable. On Appeal thereagainst State Commission set aside order of District Forum and held that complaints were maintainable being covered by the definition of “Consumer” under the provisions of the Act, 1986.Revision petition thereagainst was dismissed by National Commission.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of National Commission.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held as indicated in the definition of ‘service’, the provision of facilities in connection with supply of electrical energy is a service. Supply of electricity by the Board or for that matter KPTC to a consumer would be covered under Section 2(1)(o) being ‘service’ and if the supply of electrical energy to a consumer is not provided in time as is agreed upon, then under Section (2)(1)(g), there may be a case for deficiency in service. Contention of KPTC was founded on erroneous assumption that supply of electricity is a sale of electricity and the use of expression ‘supply’ was synonym for ‘sale’. However held , that supply of electricity to a consumer by KPTC was not sale of electricity — The expression ‘supply’ is not synonym for ‘sale’. Complaint made by company before District Forum could not be said to be not maintainable. Complaint was held maintainable.

       Result : Order accordingly