Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

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), Revision Petition No. 371 of 2006 (From the order dated 1.9.2005 in Appeal No. 793/03 of the State Commission, Gujarat), Revision Petition No. 372 of 2006 (From the order dated 1.9.2005 in Appeal No. 792/03 of the State Commission, Gujarat), Revision Petition No. 373 of 2006 (From the order dated 1.9.2005 in Appeal No. 794/03 of the State Commission, Gujarat)
Decided on : 10-04-2008

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M.G. Ramachandran and Mr. Avinash Menon, Advocates,Mr. Gopal Prasad, Advocate,Mr. M.G. Ramachandran, Ms. Pinky and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Neeraj Kr. Jain and Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate, Mr. A. Rasheed Qureshi, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the final order passed by the assessing officer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The rights of the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act are not affected by the Electricity Act. Consumer of electrical energy 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 is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to interfere with the initiation of criminal proceedings or the final order passed by any Special Court constituted under Section 153 or the civil liability determined under Section 154 of the Electricity Act.

Headnote:
Consumer Fora - Jurisdiction to deal with grievances of the consumer of electricity - Electricity Act 2003 - Sections 173, 174, 175, 42, 50, 126, 127, 145 - The court held that the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the final order passed by the assessing officer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The rights of the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act are not affected by the Electricity Act. Consumer of electrical energy 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 is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to interfere with the initiation of criminal proceedings or the final order passed by any Special Court constituted under Section 153 or the civil liability determined under Section 154 of the Electricity Act.
Fact of the Case:

The court considered the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to deal with grievances of the consumer of electricity in case of deficiency in service by the electricity supplier after the enactment of the Electricity Act 2003. The court analyzed the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Consumer Protection Act to determine the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora in such matters.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the final order passed by the assessing officer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The rights of the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act are not affected by the Electricity Act. Consumer of electrical energy 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 is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to interfere with the initiation of criminal proceedings or the final order passed by any Special Court constituted under Section 153 or the civil liability determined under Section 154 of the Electricity Act.
Issues: The court analyzed the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to deal with grievances of the consumer of electricity in case of deficiency in service by the electricity supplier after the enactment of the Electricity Act 2003.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the final order passed by the assessing officer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The rights of the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act are not affected by the Electricity Act. Consumer of electrical energy 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 is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to interfere with the initiation of criminal proceedings or the final order passed by any Special Court constituted under Section 153 or the civil liability determined under Section 154 of the Electricity Act.
Final Decision: The court decided that the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the final order passed by the assessing officer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The rights of the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act are not affected by the Electricity Act. Consumer of electrical energy 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 is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to interfere with the initiation of criminal proceedings or the final order passed by any Special Court constituted under Section 153 or the civil liability determined under Section 154 of the Electricity Act.

ORDER

M.B. Shah, President - The question which requires consideration is: whether Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to deal with the grievances of the consumer of electricity, in case of deficiency in service by the electricity supplier, after enactment of the Electricity Act 2003

2. This question is required to be decided pursuant to the directions dated 9.10.2007 issued by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4734/2007 wherein, the Court observed as under:

"However, the question which arises for determination and which has not been decided is: whether the beneficial consumer jurisdiction extends to determination of tortuous acts and liability arising therefrom by the Consumer Forum. In this connection, it is urged on behalf of the Nigam that assessment of the duty for unauthorised use of electricity, tampering of meters, distribution of meters and calibration of electric current are matters of technical nature which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum. It is urged that under the Electricity Act, 2003 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded. In this connection reliance was placed on Section 145 of the said 2003 Act under which the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suits in respect of matters falling under Section 126 is expressly barred. These are matters of assessment. It is stated that the 2003 Act is a complete Code by itself and, therefore, in matters of assessment of electricity bills the Consumer Forum should have directed the respondent to move before the Competent Authority under the Electricity Act, 2003 read with rules framed thereunder either expressly or by incorporation.

The above position was noted in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Mam Chand , (2006) 6 SCC 649.

In view of the fact that the National Commission has not addressed the question as to whether consumer of electricity is covered by the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the National Commission to record a positive finding on the aspect. It shall also take into consideration the dispute raised regarding the alleged service of notice dated 20.12.1999."

Submissions:

3. At this stage, we would refer to the submissions made by the intervenor, Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC for short), which are as under:

(i) The provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been given supremacy in so far there is inconsistency between the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Electricity Act, 2003 or Rules or Regulations made thereunder, as provided under Section 173 of the Electricity Act.

(ii) Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act recognizes that the provisions of the 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, the provisions of the Electricity Act will also continue to apply and the remedies available under the other law can be availed notwithstanding the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act.

(iii) The well-settled rule of interpretation is that every effort should be made to harmonize the provisions of two Acts and, if the colliding effect cannot be harmonized, then only the provisions of one Act are to be read down in preference to the provisions of the other Act.

4. It is his contention that the provisions of one Act can be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of the other only if they are colliding with each other and cannot be harmonized at all. For such interpretation, he relied upon various judgments and submitted that the test of inconsistency is not that two Acts say different things but the effect cannot be given to the provisions in one Act without committing violation or breach of the other.

5. Both the Counsel referred to amendment of Section 50 of the Electricity Act. We would refer to Section 50 as a whole for the purpose of understanding:

"50. The Electricity Supply Code The State Commission shall specify an Elect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis