Back
A. P. SAHI, BHARATKUMAR PANDYA
Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
RP/4164/2011
Bharatkumar Pandya, Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’) by the Petitioner - Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi (BKG), against the order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, in First Appeal No. A/07/228. The said appeal arose out of the order dated 25.01.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara, in Complaint Case No. 281 of 2003, which was originally filed on 30.10.2003. Similarly, Revision Petition No. 2002 of 2016 has been filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDB) as a cross-appeal, is challenging the adverse observations of the State Commission on merits of the case despite allowing its appeal on the ground that BKG is not “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. While the Complainant challenges the findings of the State Commission holding that he is not a “consumer” under the Act, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. is assailing the observations and findings on merits recorded by the State Commission.
2. The petitioner-complainant is a
(1) Once a judicial forum comes to conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction in the matter, it must refrain from making any observations on merits of case.(2) Electricity – Being a customer/consumer with....
Death – The very fact that the hands of the deceased contacted/touched the loose and hung live wire while he was carrying heap of paddy, supports the above version of Complainants as such, Commission....
The court ruled that victims of electrical accidents can approach Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, despite the existence of a grievance mechanism under the Electricity Act, 2003....
The central legal point established is that the opposite party was not a consumer as defined under the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, leading to jurisdictional errors by ....
“Re-appreciation and re-assessment of evidences under revisional jurisdiction not permissible.”
Compensation claims under Consumer Protection Act require jurisdictional considerations and proper appeal mechanisms; the High Court is not an appellate authority under the Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
