http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3551 of 2006

PETITIONER: The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd

RESPONDENT: Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/08/2007

BENCH: A.K.MATHUR & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3551  OF 2006

1.      This appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter for  short "the Act") is directed against the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal for  Electricity (hereinafter for short "the Appellate Tribunal") dated 5th April, 2006 in  Appellant’s appeal No. 191/2005 and the order dated 2nd June, 2006 passed by the  Appellate Tribunal in Review Petition No. 3/2006 and I.A. No. 60/2006.  2.      It is not necessary for us to go into the detailed facts.  Suffice it to say that th e  respondent company approached the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission  (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Commission") with the grievance that a  demand notice dated 26.8.2002 issued by the  Appellant’s Wardha office be declared as  illegal and may be set aside and quashed and the respondent company be permitted to  avail power supply to the limit of 90 MVA without recovery of any additional charge  either on account of service connection charges or the service line charges and to  further direct the appellant herein to refund the amount of Rs. 227.9 lakhs so collected  for re-instatement of the contract demand to the original level of 90 MVA along with  interest @ 12% from the date of payment till the date of refund.  The respondent  company was a consumer of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and originally  they had   a connection of 90 MVA  which was subsequently reduced to 80 MVA and  finally to 56 MVA on a request made by the company.  Thereafter again they applied in  June, 2002  for enhancement of their contract demand upto 90 MVA.  Their request  for enhancement of contract demand upto 90 MVA was granted though it was clearly  mentioned in the order dated 12.8.2001 while reducing the contract demand to 56  MVA that in case enhancement of contract demand was subsequently required by the  respondent company, it would attract payment of service line and other charges as per  then prevailing conditions of supply.  However, the regular supply of 90 MVA was  restored on the request of the respondent company.  The supply of 90 MVA was  restored in June, 2002 and thereafter a demand was raised in terms of letter dated  02.08.2001 for service line charges, which was agreed to be paid by the respondent  company, but in installments.  Aggrieved against the said order the respondent- company filed a petition before the Commission on the ground that the demand of  Rs.227.9 lakhs so raised for reinstatement of contract demand of 90 MVA is not  proper.  An objection was raised before the Commission that the Commission has no  jurisdiction in the matter in view of Section 42 of the Act and that the consumer should  approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and thereafter, if still aggrieved,  the Ombudsman created under the Act for redressal of their grievances.  The  Commission over-ruled this objection by making a reference to some decision of the  Bombay High Court and proceeded to assume jurisdiction and directed the refund of  the aforesaid amount to the respondent company.   3.      Aggrieved against the said order dated  18th October, 2005, the Maharashtra  State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter for short "MSEDCL")  approached the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity created under the Act.  The  Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 5th April, 2006 affirmed the order passed by  the Commission.  Thereafter a review petition was filed by the MSEDCL before the  Appellate Tribunal, which was also rejected vide order dated 2nd June, 2006.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       Aggrieved against both these orders, the   MSEDCL has approached this  Court by the present appeal under Section 125 of the Act.   4.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.      The basic question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether  the individual consumer can approach the Commission under the Act or not.       6.         For deciding this question, the relevant provision is Section 42(5) of the Act,  which reads as under:- 42. Duties of distribution licensees and open access.-

(1)     x x x x x x

(2)     x x x x x x  

(3)     x x x x x x

(4)     x x x x x x  

(5) Every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the  appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier,  establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers  in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the  State Commission." 7.      As per the aforesaid provision, if any grievance is made by a consumer, then  they have a remedy under Section 42(5) of the Act and according to sub-section (5)  every distribution licensee has to appoint a forum for redressal of grievances of the  consumers.  In exercise of this power the State has already framed The Maharashtra  Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum  and  Ombudsman) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "2003 Regulations")  and  created Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman.  Under these 2003  Regulations a proper forum for redressal of the grievances of individual consumers  has been created by the Commission.  Therefore, now by virtue of sub-section (5) of  Section 42 of the Act, all the individual grievances of consumers have to be raised  before this forum only.  In the face of this statutory provision we fail to understand  how could the Commission acquire jurisdiction to decide the matter when a forum has  been created under the Act for this purpose.  The matter should have been left to the  said forum.  This question has already been considered and decided by a Division  Bench of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Suresh Jindal Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power  Ltd. & Ors.  reported in 132 (2006) DLT 339 (DB) and Dheeraj Singh  Vs. BSES  Yamuna Power Ltd. and we approve of these decisions.  It has been held in these  decisions that the Forum and Ombudsman have power to grant interim orders.  Thus a  complete machinery has been provided in Section 42(5) and 42(6) for redressal of  grievances of individual consumers.  Hence wherever a Forum/Ombudsman have been  created the consumers can only resort to these bodies for redressal of their grievances.   Therefore, not much is required to be discussed on this issue. As the aforesaid two  decisions correctly lay down the law when an individual consumer has a grievance he  can approach the forum created under sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act.   8.      In this connection, we may also refer to Section 86 of the Act which lays down  the functions of the State Commission.  Sub-Section (1) (f) of the said Section lays down  the adjudicatory function of the State Commission which does not encompass within its  domain complaints of individual consumers.  It only provides that the Commission can  adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to  refer any such dispute for arbitration.  This does not include in it an individual  consumer.  The proper forum for that is Section 42(5) and thereafter Section 42(6)  read with Regulations of 2003 as referred to hereinabove.   9.      Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the  opinion that the view taken by the Commission as well as the Appellate Authority are  unsustainable and they have erred in coming to the conclusion that the Commission  has jurisdiction.  Consequently, we set aside the order dated 18th October, 2005 passed  by the Commission and the orders dated 5th April,  2006 and 2nd June, 2006 passed by  the Appellate Authority and remit the matter to the proper Forum created under  Section 42(5) of the Act to decide the grievance of the respondent herein in accordance  with law.  We make it clear that we have not made any observation with regard to the  merits of the demand raised by the appellant upon the respondent company and it will  be open for the proper forum to adjudicate the same.  The payment, if any, made by  the company will not operate as an estoppel against the respondent company.  We hope

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

that the forum will decide the matter expeditiously. 10.     With the above observations, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.