http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4734 of 2007

PETITIONER: Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Anr

RESPONDENT: Anwar Ali

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/10/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25840 of 2004) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New  Delhi (in short \021the National Commission\022).    3.      The appellants had questioned correctness of the findings  recorded by the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi (in short  \021District Forum\022) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (in short \021the State  Commission\022) before the National Commission.    4.      The basic grievance of the respondent was that the  electricity     supply was discontinued without notice.   Compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded along with 12%  interest per annum by the District Forum and upheld by the  State Commission. The National Commission took the view  that since notice was given after disconnection, the action was  clearly unsustainable.     5.      In support of the appeal, leaned counsel for the appellant  submitted that the District Forum, the State Commission and  the National Commission failed to appreciate that the notice of  disconnection was given on 20.12.1999 and the disconnection  was made on 29.1.2000. Additionally, it was submitted that  whether the consumer of electricity can be covered under the  provisions of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 (in short the  \021Act\022) has not been considered by the National Commission.     

6.      Stand of the appellants is that the definition of  \021Consumer\022 as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act does not cover  a consumer of electricity.   7.      Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,  submitted that the District Forum, the State Commission and  the National Commission have categorically found that no  notice was given prior to disconnection and the respondent  has taken a categorical stand that the notice dated 20.12.1999  has not been served on him.

8.      In this case we are concerned with the scope and extent  of the beneficial consumer jurisdiction, particularly with  regard to technical subjects falling under provisions such as  the Electricity Act, 2003. Under Section 2(c) of the Act  \023complaint\024 is defined to mean allegation in writing made by a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

complainant that the service provider has charged for the  services, a price in excess of the price fixed under the law for  the time being in force [See: Section 2(c) (iv)].  Under Section  2(d) \023consumer\024 is defined to mean any person who hires or  avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid  or promised or partly paid and partly promised. Under Section  2(g) of the Act the word \023deficiency\024 is defined to mean any  fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality,  nature and manner of performance which is required to be  maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or  under a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The  word \023goods\024 is defined under Section 2(i) to mean goods as  defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.  \023Service\024 also defined  under Section 2(o) of the Act to mean service of any  description which is made available to users in connection  with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing,  supply of electrical energy, entertainment etc. Therefore,  supply of electric energy by the Nigam falls under Section 2(o)  of the Act. 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 unauthorized 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 mattes 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.       

9.      The above position was noted in Haryana State Electricity  Board v. Mam Chand (2006 (4) SCC 649).           

10.     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 \021Consumer\022 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.

11.     The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no  order as to costs.