Point of Law: Electricity – Regulation 6.6 of the Regulations, 2006 for admitting grievance of a consumer is directory.

ORDER :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

1. This reference arises out of the judgment dated 13/10/2020 by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Shri Rohit B. Deo, J.) in W.P. No.7900/2017, who noticing the decision in Writ Petition No.6859 of 2017 ( The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and another Vs. Jawahar Shetkari Soot Girni Ltd. - 2019 (1) Mh.L.J. 342) in which it has been held that the cause of action to approach the Forum, as constituted under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 shall be the sufferance of the legal injury and the consumer has to complete his litigation journey within two years, and noting that the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006 [For short, “the Regulations, 2006” hereinafter], do not provide for limitation to approach the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (“the IGR-Cell” for short hereinafter) as constituted under Regulation 6.1 of the Regulations, 2006 came to the conclusion, that if the consumer lodges his grievance with the IGR-Cell within a reasonable time and if the grievance is not satisfactorily redressed within a period of two months prescribed, he cannot be non-suited on the premise that the entire litigation journey was not complete in two years, meaning thereby that in such a scenario it would not be open for the distribution licensee to contend that the application before the Forum was not lodged within two years from the sufferance of the legal injury. The learned Single Judge reiterated, that the cause of action to approach the Forum would be the date on which the period within which the IGR-Cell was expected to decide the grievance expires and the consumer becomes entitled to move the Forum.

2. A contrary view has been taken in Writ Petition No.1650 of 2012 ( Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited through its Executive Engineer and another Vs. Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur and another) holding that since there is no time limit provided for approaching the IGR-Cell it was expected of the consumer to lodge his complaint with the IGR-Cell within reasonable time from the establishment of the IGR-Cell. In M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and others (W.P. No. 9455 of 2011) 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 66 it has been held that the cause of action to approach the Forum arises only when the IGR-Cell does not redress the grievances and that the Forum and the Ombudsman erred in assuming that the cause of action arises when the legal injury was suffered.

3. Thus, according to the learned Single Judge, Jawahar Shetkari Soot Girni Ltd. (supra) ; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited through its Executive Engineer and another Vs. Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur and another and M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and others, strike a discordant note and have to be reconciled. The learned Single Judge therefore framed the following three questions :-

(I) The question involved would be when is the limitation to approach the Forum triggered ?

(II) Certain ancillary questions may call for answers including the question whether in the absence of limitation to approach the Grievance Cell whether a Consumer would be justified in approaching the Grievance Cell within a reasonable period ?

(III) The expression “cause of action” employed in Regulation 6.6 shall have to be authoritatively interpreted ?

and requested the Registrar (Judicial) to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench to answer the above questions. This is how the matter has been placed before us. After hearing the matter for some time, on 25/11/2020 we felt that the questions referred to us in the present matter for their appropriate