The main legal point established in the judgment is the technical nature of matters under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction, which requires deeper consideration by the State Commission.

S.H. Kapadia, J.—Leave granted.

2. Is the consumer beneficial jurisdiction extendable to assessment and quantification of duty (including penalty) under the Electricity Act, 2003, is the question which arose before the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. With the industrial revolution and development in the international trade and commerce, there has been a substantial increase of business and trade, which resulted in a variety of consumer goods appearing in the market to cater to the needs of the consumers. With globalization and with free market economy the possibility of deficiency in the services rendered warranted enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended from time to time. This law has been enacted for the welfare of consumers and to protect them from their exploitation for which the said 1986 Act has made provisions for the establishment of Commissions for settlement of consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. In the case of Skypak Couriers Ltd. etc. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. etc., II (2000) CPJ 6 (SC)=(2000) 5 SCC 294, this Court has held that “the Commissions, under the Act, are quasi-judicial bodies to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for that purpose, they have been empowered to give relief of a specified nature and in an appropriate way, to award compensation.”

(Emphasis supplied by us)

4. The key question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is : whether disputed and complicated questions of fact and law arising under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 concerning assessment of unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, interfering with calibration or metering of electric current resulting in theft of electricity under Section 126 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 could be decided in a summarily manner by the Consumer Forum or whether in such cases the complainant should be directed to approach the Competent Authorities under the said Electricity Act, 2003.

5. Respondent herein was having small power electric connection. That connection was checked by the junior engineer on 24.11.94. On checking, the junior engineer found the seals of the meter to be broken.

6. On 25.11.94 notice was issued to the respondent calling upon him to deposit Rs. 10,150 as per the rules of the Nigam. The respondent did not raise any dispute whatsoever with the Nigam. In fact, he submitted an application to deposit the said amount in two instalments. He was allowed to deposit the said amount in instalments.

7. In 1995, however, the respondent filed Complaint Case No. 42/95 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala against the Nigam alleging that his electric supply was illegally disconnected without showing any cause for disconnection. This complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the said 1986 Act’). In the complaint it was alleged that the concerned meter was not checked by the Nigam and, therefore, the respondent was not liable to pay the demanded penalty as claimed by the Nigam. The respondent herein denied tampering of the meter as alleged by the Nigam. According to the respondent, as a consumer he had suffered financial loss of Rs. 50,000 on account of the Nigam making a false allegation of theft against him.

8. By written statement filed on behalf of the Nigam, the allegations made by the respondent herein as a complainant came to be denied. According to the written statement, notice was given to the respondent herein as per the rules of the Nigam and the respondent was called upon to pay Rs. 10,150 as the connected load was of 10 B.H.P. According to the written statement the respondent herein never complained against the demand. He did not make any application making grievance against the Nigam. On the contrary, he had requested the Nigam to allow him to deposit the said amount in two instalments. According to the Nigam, th