IMPORTANT POINTS
1. In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint” as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The acts of indulgence in "unauthorized use of electricity" by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003 neither has any relationship with "unfair trade practice" or "restrictive trade practice" or "deficiency in service" nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the licensee. Such acts of "unauthorized use of electricity" has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in 'unauthorized use of electricity', do not fall within the meaning of "complaint", as we have noticed above and, therefore, the "complaint" against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
3. The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”. (Para 47).

Headnote:(a) Consumer Protection Act 1986,Seftion 2(1)(O), 2(1)(C) and Electricity Act, 2003
        In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint” as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Para 47).
        (b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(C) and Electricity Act 2003, Sections 135 to 140
        A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. (Para 47).
        (c) Consumer Protection Act, 1986,Section 2(1)(d) and Electricity Act, 2003
        The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”. (Para 47)
       Facts of the Case
        Eight persons namely Anis Ahmed, Rakhi Ghosh, Prithvi Pal Singh, Zulfikar, Shahzadey Alam, Atul Kumar Gupta, Tauseef Ahmed and Mohd. Yunus who had electric connections in their premises filed complaint under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the appellant U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. before the District Consumer Protection Forum-II, Moradabad. The decision having given in favour of the complainants, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd moved before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow which by its common judgment dated 31st January, 2007/Ist February, 2007 dismissed all the revision petitions filed by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. For the said reason all the cases in which the question of jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum were raised, they were heard and decided by the National Commission initially by the impugned judgment dated 10th April, 2008/16th April, 2008, followed by other orders. In appeals before the Supreme Court filed by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. In all the eight cases, the Supreme Court allowed all the appeals.
        Learned counsel for the appellants contended as under:
        (a) The proceedings under Sections126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 initiated by the service providers are not related to deficiency of service in the supply of electricity by the service providers under the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, the complaints against the proceedings under Section 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not maintainable before the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
        (b) In absence of any inconsistency between Sections 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 173 and 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not attracted.
        Per contra, according to the respondents, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the final assessment order passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
       Findings
        Held, therefore, it is only in respect to aforementioned aspects that a consumer complaint can be filed viz.
        * Unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice.
        * When there is a defective goods.
        * Deficiency in services
        * Hazardous goods
        * Hazardous services
        * a price in excess of the price fixed under any law etc. (Para19)
        Nature of transaction under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 does not come within the ambit of “complaint". (Para 20).
        From a bare reading of the section aforesaid it is clear that person(s) availing services for 'commercial purpose' do not fall within the meaning of “consumer" and cannot be a "complainant” for the purpose of filing a "complaint" before the Consumer Forum. (Para 22).
        A consumer within the meaning under Section 2(1) (d) may file a valid complaint in respect of supply of electrical or other energy, if the complaint contains allegation of unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice; or there is a defective goods; deficiency in services; hazardous services or a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law etc. (Para 23).
        From the facts narrated in the preceding paragraph it is clear that Anis Ahmed, Rakhi Ghosh, Prithvi Pal Singh, Zulfikar, Shahzadey Alam, Atul Kumar Gupta, Tauseef Ahmed and Mohd. Yunus had electrical connections for industrial/commercial purpose and, therefore, they do not come within the meaning of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; they cannot be treated as “complainant” nor they are entitled to file any "complaint" before the Consumer Forum. (Para 24).
        Admittedly, the complainants made their grievance against final order of assessment passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. None of the respondents alleged that the appellant(s) used unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice or there is deficiency in service(s) or hazardous service(s) or price fixed by the appellant(s) is excess to the price fixed under any law etc. In absence of any allegation as stipulated under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, their complaints were not maintainable. Therefore, we hold that the complaint filed by the respondents were not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. (Para 25, 26).
        Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126. A separate provision of appeal to the appellate authority has been prescribed under Section 127 so that any person aggrieved by the final order made under Section 126, may within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal. (Para 30)
        Therefore, it is clear that after notice of provisional assessment to the person indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by an assessing officer, who is a public servant, on the assessment of "unauthorized use of electricity”is a “Quasi Judicial” decision and does not fall within the meaning of “consumer dispute” under Section 2(1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Para 30).
        From a bare reading of Section 126 and Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act 2003, it is clear that while acts of "unauthorized use of electricity" attracts civil consequence of penal charge of electricity, twice the rate of electricity, for which assessment is made by assessing officer under Section 126; the very same acts of "unauthorized use of electricity", constitute "offences" under Section 135 to 140 for which sentence and fine has been prescribed. As per Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Special Courts are to be constituted for speedy trial for the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140. (Para 35)
        The Civil Court's jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect to the decision of assessing officer under Section 126, or decision of appellate authority under Section 127 is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act,2003. (Para 37).
        The National Commission placed much reliance on sub sections (5) and (6) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to derive power to adjudicate dispute arising out of Section 126, but it failed to notice that Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not applicable in the case of licensee who is a trader or supplier of electricity but it relates to "distribution licensees". (Para 38)
        The National Commission though held that the intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and have saved the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, failed to notice that by virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections 173,174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in "unauthorized use of electricity" as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Sections 135 to 140 do not fall within the meaning of “complaint" as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Para 45).
        The acts of indulgence in "unauthorized use of electricity" by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003 neither has any relationship with "unfair trade practice" or "restrictive trade practice" or "deficiency in service" nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the licensee. Such acts of "unauthorized use of electricity" has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in 'unauthorized use of electricity', do not fall within the meaning of "complaint", as we have noticed above and, therefore, the "complaint" against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. (Para 46).

Judgement Key Points

The case judgment clarified that the jurisdiction of consumer forums is not solely dependent on a strict or literal interpretation of the statutory definition of 'consumer dispute.' Instead, it emphasized that the jurisdiction depends on whether the dispute falls within the scope of "service" or "complaint" as defined under the relevant statutes. The judgment highlighted that acts such as "unauthorized use of electricity" or offences under the Electricity Act do not constitute "consumer disputes" as per the statutory definitions, and therefore, such matters are not maintainable before consumer forums. It further clarified that while the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to other laws, they do not automatically extend the jurisdiction to disputes that do not qualify as "consumer disputes" under the Act.

Hence, the judgment held that the jurisdiction of consumer fora is determined by the nature of the dispute and whether it aligns with the specific definitions and scope provided under the statutes, rather than relying solely on a strict statutory definition of 'consumer dispute.'

JUDGMENT

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.—The questions involved in these appeals are; a) whether complaints filed by the respondents before the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were maintainable and; b) whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer or any person against the assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'National Commission') by impugned majority judgment (of President and one Member) dated 10th April, 2008 observed and held as follows:

“x x x x x x x x

For the reasons stated below, in our view, the aforesaid questions can be answered as under:

i) In case of final assessment order passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, if a consumer is aggrieved, he can file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. However, it is his option to file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act or to file Appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act.

ii) Further, against the final order passed by the Appellant Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, no complaint can be entertained by the Consumer Fora.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

In view of the aforesaid settled law, the Consumer fora would have jurisdiction to entertain complaint against the final order passed by the assessing officer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Further, the jurisdiction of the consumer fora is not barred by any provisions of the Electricity Act but the same is expressly saved under Section 173 read with Sections 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act.

V. In the result, we hold as under:

i) Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and Section 175 of the Electricity Act, provide that they are in addition and not in derogation of rights under any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the rights of the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act are not affected by the Electricity Act.

ii) A bare reading of Sections 173, 174 and 175, makes it clear that the intent of the Legislature is not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. The provisions of the Electricity Act have overriding effect qua provisions of any other law except that of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Railways Act, 1989.

iii) Section 42(8)of the Electricity Act specifically provides that the remedies conferred on consumer under sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 42 are without prejudice to the right which the consumer may have apart from the rights conferred upon him by those sub-sections.

iv) Section 145 of the Electricity Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126 or an Appellate Authority referred to in Section 127 of the Electricity Act or the Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Electricity Act, is empowered to determine. Second part of Section 145 provides that no jurisdiction shall be granted by any Court or Authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. For this purpose, if we refer to Sections 173 and 174 and apply the principle laid down there-under, it would mean that qua the consumer fora there is inconsistency and, therefore, 'other authority' would not include consumer fora.

v) Consumer of electrical energy provided by the Electricity Board or other Private Company, is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(o)of the Consumer Protection Act and a complaint alleging any deficiency on the part of the Board or other private company including any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality, nature and manner of performance which is required

Click Here to Read the rest of this document