Adherence to prescribed procedures for constituting the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the independence of the Chairman from the initial decision-making authority are crucial in ensuring fair adjudication.

ORDER :

1. The order dated 10.12.2015 issued by the third respondent-Superintending Engineer, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner-Company is involved in the manufacture of cast iron and SG iron castings having High Tension Electricity Supply.

3. The issue involved in the present writ petition is the alleged non-levy of penalty.

4. Aggrieved by the demand, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Regulations Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman, 2004 and Electricity Act, 2003. However, no proper Forum was constituted in accordance with the provisions of Regulations and the third respondent-Superintending Engineer unilaterally had taken a decision and passed the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the procedure adopted by the third respondent-Superintending Engineer is in violation of the Regulations and further the power conferred on the Competent Forum has been usurped by the third respondent-Superintending Engineer without any authority of law. Thus the order impugned is untenable.

6. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and its constitution for redressal of consumer grievances are enumerated under Regulations for Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman, 2004 and Electricity Act, 2003

7. Regulation 3 sub-clause (4) contemplates ‘Constitution of Forums for redressal of consumer grievances’ which reads as under:

“The Forum shall consist of three members to be appointed by the Distribution Licensee with the following composition:

(a) Chairperson of the Forum shall be a full time Officer of the Licensee not lower in rank than the rank of Superintending Engineer.

(b) One member shall be a person with 15 to 20 years experience in financial/legal profession and shall be nominated by the District Collector of the District where the Forum is head quartered.

(c) Another member shall be from a Registered Society of NGO or a consumer organisation or a consumer activist and shall be nominated by the District Collector of the District where the Forum is head quartered.”

8. Regulation 7 sub clause (8) denotes ‘grievance handling procedure for the Forum’ which reads as under:

“All decisions shall be taken by a majority of votes by the members present and in the event of the equality of the votes, the facts may be recorded and referred to the Electricity Ombudsman for final orders. All the members present shall sign every order passed by the Forum.”

9. The above provisions of the Regulations are unambiguous that Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum must be constituted in accordance with the procedures contemplated and the adjudication must be done by following the due processes as prescribed.

10. Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the third respondent-Superintending Engineer has usurped the powers of the Forum and passed the impugned order. Further there is no reference with regard to adjudication if any conducted by the Competent Forum. Thus, the order impugned is in violation of the Regulations for constitution of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

11. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, an appeal was filed before the Forum and even without constituting the Competent Forum, the third respondent-Superintending Engineer has unilaterally passed an order.

12. This Court is of the opinion that there are frequent complaints that the third respondent-Superintending Engineer, who has dealt with the issue, is permitted to sit as a Chairman of the Forum. Such a procedure cannot be followed at all. Once the Authority determines the issue, then if any appeal is filed by the aggrieved persons before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, then the Chairman must be of the person outside the Office, which decided the issue at the first instance. In other words, the same Authority, who issued the impugned order, cannot sit as the Chairman, if any appeal is filed by an aggrieved pe