Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M.B. Shah, President, Rajyalakshmi Rao and R.C. Jain, Members
JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
ANWAR ALI - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 355 of 2004 (From the Order dated 24.11.2003 in Appeal No. 452/03 of the State Commission, Jharkhand) with Revision Petition Nos. 371, 372, 373 of 2006
Decided on : 16-04-2008
Mr. Gopal Prasad, Advocate,Mr. M.G. Ramachandran, Ms. Pinky and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. M.G. Ramachandran and Mr. Avinash Menon, Advocates for CESC., Mr. Neeraj Kr. Jain and Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate, Mr. A. Rasheed Qureshi, Advocate, for the Respondent
Consumer Fora have jurisdiction over complaints related to defects or deficiencies in the supply of electricity or unfair trade practices, but not over matters of assessment of charges for unauthorized use of electricity.
Headnote:
consumer - Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Electricity Act, 2003 - The court analyzed the definitions of 'consumer' in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act. It concluded that a consumer of electricity can be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. However, the court clarified that the Consumer Fora can only entertain complaints related to defects or deficiencies in the supply of electricity or unfair trade practices by the supplier. They do not have jurisdiction over matters of assessment of charges for unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, etc. which fall under the domain of special Courts under the Electricity Act.
Fact of the Case:
The court was asked to determine whether a person aggrieved by the assessment of charges for unauthorized use of electricity can be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and whether the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction over matters related to the assessment of duty for unauthorized usage of electricity. The court analyzed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Electricity Act to reach its decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the definitions of 'consumer' in the two Acts are different but not inconsistent. It concluded that a consumer of electricity can be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. However, the court clarified that the Consumer Fora can only entertain complaints related to defects or deficiencies in the supply of electricity or unfair trade practices by the supplier. They do not have jurisdiction over matters of assessment of charges for unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, etc. which fall under the domain of special Courts under the Electricity Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Electricity Act are not inconsistent. Consumer Fora have jurisdiction over complaints related to defects or deficiencies in the supply of electricity or unfair trade practices, but not over matters of assessment of charges for unauthorized use of electricity.
Result: The court held that the Consumer Fora established under the Consumer Protection Act do not have jurisdiction over matters relating to the assessment of charges for unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, etc. These matters fall under the domain of special Courts constituted under the Electricity Act.
ORDER
R.C. Jain, Member - I have carefully perused the opinion rendered by the Hon'ble President and learned Member Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao. While I am in general agreement with most of the observations made and conclusion reached therein but I am not persuaded to agree to the view that there exists any conflict/inconsistency between the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Electricity Act, 2003 and, therefore, by application of the provisions of Sections 173, 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act read with Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act would have jurisdiction over the matters relating to assessment of charges/duty for unauthorized use of electricity, etc. provided under Sections 126 and 127 of Part XII of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, the need to give a separate opinion.
2. The important question posed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration of the Commission has two limbs: (i) "whether a person who is aggrieved in regard to the assessment of charges for unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act can be said to be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986" and (ii) "whether having regard to the scheme and provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, matters relating to the assessment of duty for unauthorized usage of electricity, tampering of meters, calibration of electric current falling under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, are the matters over which the Consumer Fora can have jurisdiction".
3. Answer to the above question would require in-depth consideration of not only the relevant provisions of two Acts but the scheme and legislative intent behind enacting those enactments. There cannot be denial of the position that the Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a large number of consumers from exploitation at the hands of manufacturers and sellers of goods and service providers. It is equally true that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, its provisions are entitled to liberal construction. On the other hand, the Electricity Act is also a comprehensive piece of legislation and a complete code in regard to the matters concerning the supply of electricity and various allied matters. The said Act was brought on the statute book much after the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act which was in existence ever since 1986.
4. Coming to the first limb of the question as to "whether a person who is aggrieved in regard to the assessment of charges for unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act can be termed as consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. To clarify any doubt, we may at once notice that the term consumer is to be considered keeping in view the provisions of the above referred two Acts and not as it is understood in common parlance. Had it been so, then perhaps there was no need for the Apex Court to remit the matter for our consideration because it cannot be disputed that a user or consumer of electricity is indeed a consumer as is understood in common parlance. The term consumer is defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also in Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act.
Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:
"Consumer means a person who
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include
