# U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. ~-y v. ANIS AHMED

- **Citation:** [2013] 13 S.C.R. 388
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-07-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/u-p-power-corporation-ltd-and-ors-y-v-anis-ahmed-28980
- **Pages:** 44

## Headnote

~
Electricity Act, 2003 -
ss. 126 and 135 to 140 -
c Complaint before Consumer Forum against final order of
assessment made u/s. 126 of the Electricity Act or action taken
ulss. 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act - Maintainability of -
Held: A "complaint" against assessment made by assessing
officer u/s. 126 or against offences committed u/ss. 135 to 140
D
of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before a Consumer
Forum - The Electricity Act and the Consumer Protection Act
run parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within
meaning of "consumer" uls.2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection
Act or the Central Government or the State Government or
E
association of consumers but it is limited to dispute relating
to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted
by the service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers from
deficiency in service';· or "hazardous service';· or "the .service
'
x ..,·
provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by
I
or under any law" - In case of inconsistency between the
.
F
Electricity Act and the Consumer Protection Act, the
provisions of Censumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso
facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to
redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not
come within the meaning of "service" as defined uls.2(1)(o)
).__ ~
G or "complaint" as defined u/s.2(1 )(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s.2(1)(c),
2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o).
Dispute arose as to whether a complaint under the
H
388
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED
389
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the final
A
assessment order passed under Section 126 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is maintainable before the Consumer
Forum.
The appellants contended: (!'!) that proceedings
under Sections 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act,
2003 are not related to deficiency of service in the supply
8
of electricity by the service providers under the Electricity
Act, 2003 and therefore, complaints against proceedings
under Section 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003
C
are not maintainable before the Forum constituted under
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and (b) that in
absence of any inconsistency between Sections 126, 127,
135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 173 and 17 4 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 are not attracted.
D
- The questions therefore involved in the instant
appeals were: a) whether complaints filed by the
respondents before the Consumer Forum constituted
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were
E
maintainable; and b) ,whether the Consumer Forum has
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer
or any person against ~he assessment made under
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or action. taken
under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and.
F
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. "Consumer" is defined under Section 2(1 )(d)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From a bare
, ~
reading of the section aforesaid it is clear that person(s)
G
availing services for 'commercial purpose' do not fall
within the meaning of "consumer" and' cannot be a
"complaincint" for: the purpose of filing a "complaint"
before the Consumer Forum. "Service" as defined under
Section 2(1 )(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A includes supply of electrical or other energy. A consumer
within the meaning under Section 2(1) (d) may file a valid
complaint in respect of supply of electrical or other
energy, if the complaint contains allegation of unfair trade
practice or restrictive trade practice; or there is a defective
B goods; deficiency in services; hazardous services or a
price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law etc.
[Paras 22, 23) [410-Ci 411-B-C, F]
2. In the instant case, it is clear that the respondents
had electrical connections for industrial/commercial
C purpose a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,285 of 77,648. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39285 for what follows._

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 388
.~
~
, .. , __
A
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
~-y
v.
ANIS AHMED
(Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012)
8
JULY 1, 2013
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
~
Electricity Act, 2003 -
ss. 126 and 135 to 140 -
c Complaint before Consumer Forum against final order of
assessment made u/s. 126 of the Electricity Act or action taken
ulss. 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act - Maintainability of -
Held: A "complaint" against assessment made by assessing
officer u/s. 126 or against offences committed u/ss. 135 to 140
D
of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before a Consumer
Forum - The Electricity Act and the Consumer Protection Act
run parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within
meaning of "consumer" uls.2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection
Act or the Central Government or the State Government or
E
association of consumers but it is limited to dispute relating
to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted
by the service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers from
deficiency in service';· or "hazardous service';· or "the .service
'
x ..,·
provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by
I
or under any law" - In case of inconsistency between the
.
F
Electricity Act and the Consumer Protection Act, the
provisions of Censumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso
facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to
redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not
come within the meaning of "service" as defined uls.2(1)(o)
).__ ~
G or "complaint" as defined u/s.2(1 )(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s.2(1)(c),
2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o).
Dispute arose as to whether a complaint under the
H
388
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED
389
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the final
A
assessment order passed under Section 126 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is maintainable before the Consumer
Forum.
The appellants contended: (!'!) that proceedings
under Sections 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act,
2003 are not related to deficiency of service in the supply
8
of electricity by the service providers under the Electricity
Act, 2003 and therefore, complaints against proceedings
under Section 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003
C
are not maintainable before the Forum constituted under
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and (b) that in
absence of any inconsistency between Sections 126, 127,
135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 173 and 17 4 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 are not attracted.
D
- The questions therefore involved in the instant
appeals were: a) whether complaints filed by the
respondents before the Consumer Forum constituted
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were
E
maintainable; and b) ,whether the Consumer Forum has
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer
or any person against ~he assessment made under
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or action. taken
under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and.
F
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. "Consumer" is defined under Section 2(1 )(d)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From a bare
, ~
reading of the section aforesaid it is clear that person(s)
G
availing services for 'commercial purpose' do not fall
within the meaning of "consumer" and' cannot be a
"complaincint" for: the purpose of filing a "complaint"
before the Consumer Forum. "Service" as defined under
Section 2(1 )(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A includes supply of electrical or other energy. A consumer
within the meaning under Section 2(1) (d) may file a valid
complaint in respect of supply of electrical or other
energy, if the complaint contains allegation of unfair trade
practice or restrictive trade practice; or there is a defective
B goods; deficiency in services; hazardous services or a
price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law etc.
[Paras 22, 23) [410-Ci 411-B-C, F]
2. In the instant case, it is clear that the respondents
had electrical connections for industrial/commercial
C purpose and, therefore, they do not come within the
meaning of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1 )(d)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; they cannot be
treated as "complainant" nor they are entitled to file any
"complaint" before the Consumer Forum. Admittedly, the
D complainants made their grievance against final order of
assessment passed under Section 126 of the Electricity
Act, 2003. None of the respondents alleged that the
appellant(s) used unfair trade practice or a restrictive
trade practice or there is deficiency in service(s) or
E hazardous service(s) or price fixed by the appellant(s) is
excess to the price fixed under any law etc. In absence
of any allegation as stipulated under Sectioh 2(1)(c) of the
Consumer Protection Act,1986, their complaints are not
maintainable. Therefore, the complaint filed by the
F respondents were not maintainable before the Consumer
Forum. [Paras 24, 25 and 26) [411-G-H; 412-A-D]
3. From a bare reading of Section 126 and Sections
135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is clear that while
G acts of "unauthorized use of electricity" attracts civil
consequence of penal charge of electricity, twice the rate
of electricity, for which assessment is made by assessing
officer under Section 126; the very same acts of
"unauthorized use of electricity", constitute "offences"
under Section 135 to 140 for which sentence and fine has
H
......
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 391
*
been prescribed. As per Section 153 of the Electricity Act,
A
2003, Special Courts are to be constituted for speedy trial
for the offences referred· to in Sections 135 to 140. The
Civil Court's jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect
to the decision of assessing officer under Section 126,
or decision of appellate authority under Section 127 is
B
barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act,2003.
[Paras 35, 36, 37] [422-E-G; · 423-F-G]
_--l,.
4. Vide the impugned majority judgment, the National
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission placed c
.._.
much reliance on sub sections (5) and (6) of Section 42
of the Electricity Act, 2003 to derive power to adjudicate
dispute arising out of Section 126, but it failed to notice
that Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not
applicable in the case of licensee who is a trader or
D
supplier of electricity but it relates to "distribution
..,
)rlicensees". [Para · 38] [424-8-C]
5.1. Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers
the Appropriate Commission to grant a licence to any
person to "transmit electricity" or "to distribute
E
electricity" or "to undertake trading in electricity".
Amongst the three categories of licensee(s) viz."
transmission licensee"; "distribution licensee" and the
... x
"licensee to undertake trading in electricity", the
provisions with respect to "distribution licensees" have
F
been provided under Part VI of the Electricity Act, 2003
but not the two other licensees. Bare perusal of Part VI
and Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 makes it further
clear. [Paras 39, 40] [424-D; G-H;--425-A]
... : _A.
5.2. Section 50 of the Ele~tricity Act, 2003 empowers G
the State Commission to specify an Electricity Supply
Code to provide for recovery of electricity charges,
intervals for billing of electricity charges, measures for
preventing damage to electrical plant or electrical line or
H
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
A meter, entry of distribution licensee etc. From reading
Section 50, it is clear that under the Electricity Supply
Code provisions are to be made for recovery of electricity
charges, billing of electricity charges, disconnection etc.
and measures for preventing tampering, distress or
B damage to the electrical plant or line or meter etc. But the
said code do not relate to assessment of charges for
"unauthorized use of electricity" under Section 126 or
action to be taken against those committing 'offences'
under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
.f--..
c [Para 41] [427-E-F; 428-A-C]
-
5.3. Limitation under Section 173, 174 and 175 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is only qua the scope of Consumer
Protection Act. [Para 42] [428-C-D]
D
6. Inconsistency would arise only if the provisions of
the Electricity Act, 2003 run counter to the provisions of
-1'
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or if while enforcing
;
provision on one statute, provisions of other statute is
violated. The entire object and reasons of Consumer
E Protection Act is not crossed over by the Electricity Act,
2003 and whenever such situation arise the Electricity
Act, 2003 has left the option open for the consumer to
take recourse under other Laws. [Para 43] [428-H; 429A-BJ
~ ....
F
7. The National Commission though held that the
intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction
of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection
Act and have saved the provisions of the Consumer
G
Protection Act, failed to notice that by virtue of Section 3
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections 173, 17 4
,A_·,.
and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Consumer Forum
cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation
to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under
Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, as the acts of
H
-
... x
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 393
indulging in "unauthorized use of electricity" as defined
A
under Section 126 or committing offence under Sections
135 to 140 do not fall within the meaning of "complaint"
as defined under Section 2(1 )(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. [Para 45] [429-G-H; 430-A-B]
8. The acts of indulgence in "unauthorized use of
electricity" by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the
Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003
neither has any relationship with "unfair trade practice"
B
or "restrictive trade practice" or "deficiency in service"
nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the
C
licensee. Such acts of "unauthorized use of electricity"
has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the
price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in
'unauthorized use of electricity', do not fall within the
meaning of "complaint", and, therefore, the "complaint"
D
against assessment under Section· 126 is not
maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The offences
referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a
Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the
E
complaint against any action taken under Sections 135
to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable
before the Consumer Forum. [Para 46) [430-C-F]
8. It is therefore held that:
(i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity
Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the
provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail,
F
but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum
with the power to redress any dispute with regard to
G
the matters which do not come within the meaning
of "service" as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or
"complaint" as defined under Section 2(1 )(c) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
(ii) A "complajnt" against the assessment made by
......__
assessing officer under Section 126 or against the
offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a
Consumer Forum.
B
(iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal
to any person, who falls within the meaning of
-+---
"consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer
c
Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the
State Government or association of consumers but
-
it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade
practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by
the service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers
D
from deficiency in service"; or "hazardous service";
or "the service provider has charged a price in
~
excess of the price fixed by or under any law". [Para
47] [430-G-H; 431-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
E 5466 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 07.07.2011 .of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2417 of 2007.
X. ...
F
WITH
C.A. Nos. 5467-5468, 5469, 5470, 5471, 5472, 5473, 5474
& 5475 of 2012.
G
K.V. Viswanathan, L.N. Rao, Altaf Ahmad, Pradeep Misra,
A._-;
Suraj Singh, Jyoti Sharma, Dipak Bhattacharya, Rajat Jariwal,
Anupinder Jassal, Abhishek Kaushik, Manish Kumar Saran,
Vijay Kumar, B,V, Desai, Avijit Bhushan, Shreyas Mehrotra,
Pooja for the Appearing parties.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 395
/-
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. The
A
questions involved in these appeals are; a) whether complaints
filed by the respondents before the Consumer Forum
constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were
maintainable and; b) whether the Consumer Forum has
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer or any
B
person against the assessment made under Section 126 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 or action taken under Sections 135 to 140
of the Electricity Act, 2003 .
.. ~
2. The National Consumers Disputes. Redressal c
__ ..
Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'National
Commission') by impugned majority judgment (of President and
one Member) dated 10th April, 2008 observed and held as
follows:
"xx xx xx xx
D
'
'r'
For the reasons stated below, in our view, the aforesaid
questions can be answered as under:
(i) In case of final assessment order passed under
E
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, if a consumer
is aggrieved, he can file complaint under the
Consumer Protection Act. However, it is his option
~
to file complaint under the Consumer Protection
....
Act or to file Appeal under Section 127 of the
Electricity Act.
F
(ii) Further, against the final order passed by the
Appellant Authority under Section 127 of the
_,_J,
Electricity Act, no complaint can be entertained by
the Consumer Fora
G
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
In view of the aforesaid settled law, the Consumer
fora would have jurisdiction to entertain complaint against
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
the final order passed by the assessing officer under
~
Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Further, the jurisdiction
of the consumer fora is not barred by any provisions of
the Electricity Act but the same is expressly saved under
Section 173 read with Sections 17 4 and 175 of the
8
Electricity Act. ·
v.
In the result, we hold as under:
(i)
Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and
,).__ <
Section 175 of the Electricity Act, provide that they
c
are in addition and not in derogation of rights
•
under any other law for the time being in force.
Therefore, the rights of the consumers under the
Consumer Protection Act are not affected by the
Electricity Act.
D
~
(ii)
A bare reading of Sections 173, 174 and 175,
makes it clear that the intent of the Legislature is
not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora
constituted under the Consumer Protection Act.
E
The provisions of the Electricity Act have
overriding effect qua provisions of any other law
except that of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Railways
Act, 1989.
;:it.,
.~
F
(iii)
Section 42{8)of the Electricity Act specifically
provides that the remedies conferred on consumer
under sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 42
are without prejudice to the right which the
consumer may have apart from the rights
,4__ r..,,
G
conferred upon him by those sub-sections.
(iv)
Section 145 of the Electricity Act specifically bars
the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any
suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which
H
an assessing officer referred to in Section 126 or
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 397
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
an Appellate Authority referred to in Section 127 A
of the Electricity Act or the Adjudicating Officer
appointed under the Electricity Act, is empowered
to determine.
Second part of Section 145 provides that no B
jurisdiction shall be granted by any Court or
Authority in respect of any action taken or to be
taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or
-..J.-
under the Act. For this purpose, if we refer to
Sections 173 and 17 4 and apply the principle laid c
-
down there-under, it would mean that qua the
consumer fora there is inconsistency and,
therefore, 'other authority' would not include
consumer fora.
(v)
Consumer of electrical energy provided by the D
Electricity Board or other Private Company, 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 including any fault, imperfection,
E
shortcoming or inadequacy in quality, nature and
manner of performance which is required to be
maintained by or under any law or in pursuance
~ ~
of any contract in relation to service, is
~
maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
F
Against the Assessment Order passed under
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, a consumer has
option either to file Appeal under Section 127 of
.
the Electricity Act or to approach the Consumer
G
_.._
Fora by filing complaint. He has to select either
of the remedy. However, before entertaining the
complaint, the Consumer Fora would direct the
Consumer to deposit an amount equal to onethird of the assessed amount with the licensee
[similar to Section 127(2) of the Electricity Act].
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
(vi)
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
B
Act."
c
D
E
F
G
3. The judicial Member having not agreed with the majority
finding, by his minority judgment dated 16th April, 2008 held
as follows:
-4--
"14. In the result I hold as under:
(i)
The provisions contained in Section 126 and 127
of Part XII of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not
inconsistent with the provisions of Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 and consequently there is no
need to have resort to the provisions of Section
173 and 17 4 of the Electricity Act. The provisions
of the Consumer Protection Act and Electricity Act
can be given their full meaning and effect on the
ground (ii) Consumer fora constituted under the
Consumer Protection Act would have jurisdiction
to entertain only the complaints filed by a
consumer of electricity alleging any defect or
deficiency in the supply of electricity or alleging
adoption of any unfair trade practice by the
supplier of electricity. (iii) The consumer fora
established under the Consumer Protection Act
have no jurisdiction over the matter relating to the
assessment of charges for unauthorized use of
electricity, tampering of meters etc.· as a/so over
the matters which fall under the domain of special
Courts constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003."
Following the aforesaid majority decision dated 10th April,
2008, other cases were disposed of by the National
H Commission in similar terms by impugned orders dated 13th
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 399
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
,>
, March, 2009, 29th March, 2011 and 7th July, 2011. By A
impugned order dated 13th March, 2009, giving reference to
the aforesaid judgment dated 10th April, 2008, the matter was
remitted to the State Consumers Disputes Redressal
Commission (hereinafter -referred to as the "State
Commission') for fresh decision.
B
4. For determination of the issue involved in these appeals,
it is necessary to discuss the relevant facts as were pleaded
..-.A
by the parties before the Consumer Fora. The same is
mentioned hereunder:
c
5. Case of Anis Ahmad,
Anis Ahmed filed a complaint before the District Consumer
Protection Forum, Moradabad and claimed that he is a
consumer of electricity having connection No.104427 with D
).
sanctioned load of 6.5 horse power. He alleged that the
authorities of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. prepared a
fictitious checking report dated 17th July, 2003 and falsely
implicated the complainant that he had used more than
sanctioned load of 10 H.P. in his factory and on the basis of E
fictitious report a proceeding was initiated on 15th April, 2004
followed by a bill No.5004369 dated 15th June, 2004
demanding a sum of Rs.2, 11,451/-. He prayed to direct the
.>
.)<,
appellant to correct the bill, withdraw the demand notice and
to pay the costs.
F
The appellant, U.P. State Corporation Ltd. filed the
objections regarding maintainability of the above said petition.
It was alleged that the complainant had industrial connection
: __-i.
which was disconnected earlier due to the arrears of electricity
dues. On a checking held on 17th March, 2004 by SubG
Divisional Officer-II and Junior Engineer, it was found that the
LT. line of three phases passing from the other side of the
premises of the complainant was tapped with the cables
attached with the meter though they were disconnected earlier
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
and the complainant was using full 10 horse power load by
committing theft of electricity by Qye-passing the meter.
6. Case of Rakhi Ghosh
Rakhi Ghosh claimed before the District Consumer
B
Disputes Redressal Forum, at Suri, Birbhum, West Bengai, that
he is a consumer of electricity having Connection No.1/7884
with connected load of 20 H.P. He is running his husking mill
through connected load. He challenged the bill for Rs.3,73,935/
-"'---~
- raised by the West Bengal State Electricity Board which was
c raised on the ground of unauthorized extension of load of 8 H.P.
The appellant, West Bengal Electricity Board filed the
objections and raised the question of maintainability of the
application. It was stated that consumer was enjoying Industrial
D connection and, therefore, does not fall within the definition of
"consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was
further alleged that a police case being No.19/2005 dated 26th
February, 2005 has already been lodged against Rakhi Ghosh
for theft of electricity, therefore, the consumer forum has no
E jurisdiction to entertain the application.
7. Case of Prithvi Pal Singh
Prithvi Pal Singh filed a complaint before the District
/l.
~
Consumer Protection Forum-II, Moradabad that he is a
F
consumer having connection No.0102/102474 with a
sanctioned load of 6 KW. It was alleged that the U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd. got his premises inspected by its team and
subsequently sent a notice to him on 1st December, 2005. In
the said notice it was alleged that the Enforcement team on
G inspection made on 25th November, 2004 flilund that the
;.___ :
complainant was committing theft of electricity by making a cut
at the cable prior to meter and was using excess load. He
challenged the bill raised by the Corporation for Rs.1,45,546/-
and prayed for compensation of 10,000/- for harassment.
H
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 401
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
~ ,;.-
The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. filed objections
A
~
and raised the question of maintainability of the petition. It was
alleged that on checking, a cut mark on three phase cable
before the meter was detected by which the complainant was
committing theft of electricity of 13 KW by bye-passing the
meter. A bill for Rs. 1,99,805/- was raised for theft of the
B
electricity.
8. Case of Zulfikar
· Zulfikar filed a .complaint before the District Consumer
Protect Forum-II, Moradabad, challenging a notice of c
assessment. He stated that he is a consumer of commercial
electricity connection bearing No.3293/115275, the sanctioned
load of which is 3 KW. According to him on receipt of notice
he enquired about the same to the appellant and came to know
that on the basis of checking report they have issued the bill. It
D
was alleged that the said checking report dated 22nd July, 2004
is false and fabricated and no checking was done on the
premises of the complainant.
The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. filed objections
E
raising the question of maintainability of the complaint on the
ground that the complainant Zulfikar had commercial
connection and hence does not fall within the definition of
•
.~
'Consumer'. It was alleged that Enforcement Squad and
Assistant Engineer (Raids) on 22nd July, 2004 raided the
F
premises of the. complainant and during the inspection found
that 4 leads of the PV~ cable of electricity line leading to the
meter had been cut and bye-passing the same, 5. 76 KW load
was being used by the complainarit illegally. They alleged theft
of electricity against the complainant for which an assessment
notice was issued. It was contended that theft of electricity does
G
not amount to deficiency in service, therefore, the Consumer
Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition
regarding the theft of the electricity under the Consumer
Protection Act.
H
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
9. Case of Shahzadey Alam
-4..._ ~
Shahzadey Alam filed a complaint case before the District
Consumer Protection Forum-II, Moradabad challenging the
revenue assessment notice dated 9th February, 2005 and
8
requested to pay the compensation for mental and physical
agony. In his petition Shahzadey Alam stated that he was
consumer of electricity connection No.0832782700, having a
sanctioned load of 2 KW. On 20th October, 1986, the officials
of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. disconnected the aforesaid
electricity connection for non-payment of Suvidh Shulka. As the
C said electricity connection was not required for the complainant,
he did not get the same restored. It is alleged that in spite of
the same, the complainant received a notice of assessment on
16th February, 2005.
D
The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on
appearance challenged the maintainability of the petition before
the Consumer Forum. It was stated that the complainant had
himself admitted that his electricity connection was
disconnected on 20th October, 1986, therefore, the petition was
E not maintainable. It was further alleged that the complainant has
a factory which was raided and checked by the enforcement
·squad on 24th January, 2005 at 4.10 hours and that it was found
that the complainant was committing theft of electricity by cutting
three phase cable going near his premises to the connection
x •
F
No.2783/116398 of L.M.V.-11 category of Shri Javed ·and by
connecting it with 15 meters cable and using 4.70 K.W. load
and that no valid connection was found in the premises of the
complainant. Therefore, the complainant was asked to deposit
compounding fee of Rs.1,02,400/-, but he has not deposited
.it. On the basis of the report a notice was issued to the
· G complainant.
10. Case of Atul Kumar Gupta
Atul Kumar Gupta filed a complaint before the District .
H Consumer Protection Forum-II, Moradabad, stating that he is
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED
403
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
>
a consumer of electricity connection No.1034/117269, having
A
sanctioned load of 7.5 KW. It is alleged that the electricity
connection of the complainant has been disconnected on 29th
February, 2003 on the ground of outstanding electricity charges.
Later on, the appellant informed that a case in connection with
checking is under consideration and, therefore, the connection
8
of the complainant cannot be restored. The complainant alleged
that on 13th March, 2004 he received Revenue assessment
notice alongwith a checking report No.164 dated 1st March,
~
2004, though no checking was conducted at the premises of
the complainant on 1st March, 2004. He prayed for cancellation c
of the assessment notice dated 10th March, 2004 and claimed
compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and
financial loss.
The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., in their reply
D
raised the question of maintainability of the petition in view of
)._
the fact that the complainant's connection was disconnected on
28th February, 2003 and that on inspection it was found that
he was committing theft of electricity by pilferage of electricity.
11. Case of Tauseef Ahmed
E
Tauseef Ahmed moved before the District Consumer
Protection Forum-II, Moradabad and stated that he is a
'1'
consumer of electricity having connection No.115694 with
~
sanctioned load of 2 KW. He alleged that three employees of
the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. visited his premises. Out of
F
them one represented himself to be the Junior Engineer and
demanded bribe of Rs.6,000/- illegally. As he refused to pay
the amount, a notice was served on him on 8th September,
.- _...l
2004 along with a report dated 11th August, 2004 and a bill
G
for Rs.1,94,382/- was raised. He challenged the bill before the
District Forum.
The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on appearance raised
the question of maintainability of the petition, one of the grourids
taken was that the complainant has already filed an Original Suit
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
A No.391 of 2004 (Tauseef Ahmed vs. Uttar Pradesh Power
Corporation) for the same relief before the Court of Civil Judge
"(Junior Division), Moradabad in which summons has already
been issued and the matter is pending. It was alleged that the
premises of the claimant was checked on 11th August, 2004
B in the presence of the complainant and on checking it was found
that 6.945 KW of electricity had been illegally used instead of
sanctioned load of 2 KW. It was brought to the notice of the
Forum that U!)e of excess l_oad than the sanctioned electric load
for any other purpose for which connection has been granted,
. c comes within the meaning of "pilferage of electricity" as defined
under U.P. Electricity (Consumers) Regulation, 1984 for which
notice of assessment was sent to the complainant for recovery
of sum of Rs.1,94,382/- which on hearing the parties was
finalized to be Rs.1,07,985/- vide order dated 1st Octob~r.
D 2004.
12. Case of Mohd. Yunus
Mohd. Yunus filed a complaint before the District
Consumer Protection Forum-II, Moradabad claiming to be a
E consumer of commercial electricity having connection No.2701/
0-98494, with sanctioned load of 5 KW. It was alleged that on
the basis of a checking report dated 17th November, 2004
revenue assessment notice dated 1st February, 2005 was
served on him. He sought for a copy of the report and came to
F know that Junior Engineer had sent a false checking report to
the Divisional Office because of non-payment of monthly
"Suvidha Sulk" by the complainant. He challenged the revenue
assessment notice dated 1st February, 2005 and claimed
compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental suffering and financial
G loss.
The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on appearance raised
the question of maintainability of the petition. It was stated that
the complainant is a consumer of L.M.V.-11 category using
electricity for commercial purposes, therefore, he does not fall
H under the definition of "consumer", as defined under Section
•
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED
405
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
>
2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It was further alleged
A
that on 17th November, 2004 on checking of the premises of
the complainant by Sub-Divisional Officer-II, Moradabad and
Junior Engineer it was found that the complainant was using
the connection for industrial purposes under L.M.V.-6 category
without any prior consent of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
B
He was using electrical energy for the purposes other than the
purpose for which it was sanctioned. Therefore, the
..-----+
complainant was ~ound to be guilty of pilferage of electricity .
13. All the cases against the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. c
-
were filed 'before the District Consumer Protection Forum-II,
Moradabad. The decision having given in favour of the
complainants, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd moved before the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow which by its common judgment dated 31st
D
)..
January, 2007/lst February, 2007 dismissed all the revision
petitions filed by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
14. For the said reason all the cases in which the question
of jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum were raised, they were
heard and decided by the National Commission initially by the
E
impugned judgment dated 10th April, 2008/16th April, 2008,
followed by other orders.
/
~
Submissions:
..
15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended as under:
F
(a) The proceedings under Sections126, 127, 135 etc. of
the Electricity Act, 2003 initiated by the service providers are
not related to deficiency of service in the supply of electricity
~~
by the service providers under the Electricity Act, 2003.
G
Therefore, the complaints against the proceedings under
Section 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not
maintainable before the Forum constituted under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
(b) In absence of any inconsistency between Sections 12~.
H
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013) 13 S.C.R.
,
__
A
127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions of
~
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 173 and 174 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 are not attracted.
16. Per contra, according to the respondents, a complaint
B under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the final
assessment order passed under Section 126 of the Electricity
Act, 2003 is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
17. To determine the question, it would be appropriate to
L.
refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons and relevant
c provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as quoted
....
below:
"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
D
The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide
for better protection of the interests of consumers and for
the purpose, to make provision for the establishment of
Consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement
of consumer disputes and for matter connected therewith.
E
2. It seeks, inter alia, to promote and protect the rights of
consumers such as-
(a)
the right to be protected against marketing
~
of goods which are hazardous to life and
'
F
property;
...
(b)
the right to be informed about the quality,
quantity, potency, purity, standard and price
of goods to protect the consumer against
unfair trade practices;
)..._G
(c)
the right to be assured, wherever possible,
access to an authority of goods at
competitive prices;
H
(d)
the right to be heard and to be assured that
...... ----+
-
#-
'j..
-~
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 407
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
consumers interests will receive due
A
consideration at appropriate forums;
(e)
the right to seek redressal against unfair
trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation
of consumers; and
(f)
right to consumer education ..
3. These objects are sought to be promoted and protected
by the Consumer Protection Council to be established at
the Central and State level.
4. To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer
disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be setup
at the district, State and Central levels. These quasijudicial bodies will observe the principles of natural justice
and have been empowered to give relief of a specific
nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation
to consumers. Penalties for noncompliance of the orders
given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been
provided."
Scope of consumer complaint
18. "Consumer dispute" is defined under Section 2(e) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner:
.
"2(e) "consumer dispute" means a dispute where the
person against whom a complaint has been made, denies
or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint."
Therefore, for a valid consumer dispute an assertion and
denial of a valid complaint is must.
19. "Complaint" is defined under Section 2(1) (c) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner:
"2(1)(c) "complaint" means any allegation in writing made
by a complainant that8
c
G)
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
(i)
an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade
practice has been adopted by (any trader or
service provider ;
B
c
D
E
F
G
(ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by
him suffer from one or more defects;
(iii)
the services hired or availed of or agreed to be
hired or availed of by him suffer from
deficiency in any respect;
~
(Iv)
a trader or the service provider, as the case
may be, has charged for the goods or for the
services mentioned in the complaint, a price In
excess of the price-
(a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in
force;
-
(b) displayed on the goods or any package
containing such goods;
(c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by
or under any law for the time being inforce;
(d) agreed between the parties;
(v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when
used, are being-offered for sale to the public-
(a)
in contravention of any standard relating to safety
of such goods as required to be complied with, by
or under any law for the time being in force;
(b)
if the trader could have known with due diligence
that the goods so offered are unsafe to the public;
(vi) services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous
to life and safety of the public when used, are being offered
H
by the service provider which such person could have
U.P. POWER CORPORATION L TO. v. ANIS AHMED 409
[SU0
0HANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
>-
known with due diligence to be injurious to life and safety;
A
-
,
)l
with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this
Act;"
Therefore, it is only in respect to aforementioned aspects
that a consumer complaint can be filed viz.
* Unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice.
* When there is a defective goods.
* Deficiency in services
* Hazardous goods
* Hazardous services
B
c
* a price in excess of the price fixed under any law etc.
D
20. Deficiency of service is defined under Section 2(g) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner:
"2(g) "deficiency"means 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 has been
undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of
a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."
Therefore, it is clear that nature of transaction under
Section 126 does not come within the ambit of "complaint".
21. Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
E
F
defines "complainant" as follows:
G
"2(1)(b)
"complainant" means-
(i)
a consumer; or
(ii)
any voluntary consumer association registered
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under
any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii)
the Central Government or any State Government;
or
(iv)
one or more consumers, where there are numerous
consumers having the same interest;
(v)
in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or
representative; who or which makes a complaint;"
~~
22.