SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Haryana State Electricity Board
Vs
Mam Chand
Appeal (Civil) 2325 of 2006 (Arising Out of Slp (C) No.18892 of 2005)
(Arijit Pasayat and S. H. Kapadia, JJ)
28.04.2006
S. H. KAPADIA, J.
Leave granted.
Is the consumer beneficial jurisdiction extendable to assessment and
quantification of duty (including penalty) under the Electricity
Act, 2003, is the question which arose before the State Commission under
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
With the industrial revolution and development in the international trade and
commerce, there has been a substantial increase of business and trade, which
resulted in a variety of consumer goods appearing in the market to cater to the
needs of the consumers. With globalization and with free market economy the
possibility of deficiency in the services rendered warranted enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended from time to
time. This law has been enacted for the welfare of consumers and to protect
them from their exploitation for which the said 1986 Act has made provisions
for the establishment of Commissions for settlement of consumer disputes and
matters connected therewith. In the case of Skypak Couriers Ltd. etc. v. Tata
Chemicals Ltd. etc., this court has held that "the Commissions,
under the Act, are quasi-judicial bodies to provide speedy and simple redressal
to consumer disputes and for that purpose, they have been empowered to give
relief of a specified nature and in an appropriate way, to award
compensation." (emphasis supplied by us)
The key question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is :
whether disputed and complicated questions of fact and law arising under the
provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003
On 25.11.94 notice was issued to the respondent calling upon him to deposit
Rs.10, 150/- as per the rules of the Nigam. The respondent did not raise any
dispute whatsoever with the Nigam. In fact, he submitted an application to
deposit the said amount in two instalments. He was allowed to deposit the said
amount in instalments.
In 1995, however, the respondent filed Complaint Case No.42/95 before the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala against the Nigam alleging
that his electric supply was illegally disconnected without showing any cause
for disconnection. This complaint was filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as,
'the said 1986 Act'). In the complaint it was alleged that the concerned meter
was not checked by the Nigam and, therefore, the respondent was not liable to
pay the demanded penalty as claimed by the Nigam. The respondent herein denied
tampering of the meter as alleged by the Nigam. According to the respondent, as
a consumer he had suffered financial loss of Rs.50, 000/- on account of the
Nigam making a false allegation of theft against him.
By written statement filed on behalf of the Nigam, the allegations made by the
respondent herein as a complainant came to be denied. According to the written
statement, notice was given to the respondent herein as per the rules of the
Nigam and the respondent was called upon to pay Rs.10, 150/- as the connected
load was of 10 B.H.P. According to the written statement the respondent herein
never complained against the demand. He did not make any application making
grievance against the Nigam. On the contrary, he had requested the Nigam to
allow him to deposit the said amount in two instalments. According to the
Nigam, the demand was raised on account of breaking of seals. In the written
statement it was submitted by the Nigam that breaking seals of the meter
amounted to theft on account of which the Nigam had suffered losses.
By judgment and order dated 7.7.1997 the said District Forum allowed the
complaint and directed the Nigam to refund the aforestated amount of Rs.10,
150/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment.
However, the Nigam was ordered to pay Rs.500/- by way of costs. Aggrieved by
the said judgment and order passed by the said District Forum, the Nigam
preferred First Appeal No.411 of 1997 before the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh under section 15 of the said 1986
Act. By a non-speaking order and without discussing the merits of the case the
said State Commission dismissed the First Appeal preferred by the Nigam.
Aggrieved by the decision given by the said State Commission, the Nigam
preferred Revision Petition No.2154 of 1999 before the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The revision was dismissed by
National Commission without reasons. Hence, the Nigam has come to this court by
way of special leave petition.
The basic contention advanced on behalf of the Nigam before us was that the
State Commission has been constituted under Section 15 of the said 1986 Act as
the first statutory appellate authority and consequently the State Commission
had erred in dismissing the said appeal by a non-speaking order. Before us, it
is further urged that in this case the check report duly signed by the
respondent in Hindi indicated that the seals on the meter had been tampered for
which the respondent was ready to pay the penalty as indicated by the above
facts. This aspect is important because all the three courts below proceeded on
the basis that mere breaking of the seals on the meter is not a conclusive
proof of theft of electric energy. This aspect has not been appreciated by the
State Commission as well as by the National Commission. This circumstance
coupled with the fact that the respondent had asked for time to deposit in
instalments also showed that the respondent had notice of the demand raised by
the Nigam.
On behalf of the respondent reliance is placed on the judgment of the Consumer
Forum and particularly on paragraphs 10, 11 and 12. It is urged on behalf of
the respondent that mere breaking of the seals on the meter did not constitute
a conclusive proof of theft of electric energy. It is urged that the State
Commission as well as the National Commission have indicated in their impugned
orders that they were in agreement with paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the
decision of the Consumer Forum and therefore no interference was called for by
this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
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
In our view, the contentions advanced on behalf of the Nigam require deeper
consideration by the State Commission. None of the above points have been
discussed by the State Commission in this case.
Disputes of this nature are repeatedly arising before this court. At this
stage, we do not wish to express any opinion. In our opinion, for the foregoing
reasons the civil appeal filed by the Nigam deserves to be allowed and is
hereby allowed.
We accordingly direct the State Commission to decide the matter on facts of
this case in the light of the provisions of the Electricity
Act, 2003 read with the rules framed thereunder.
The impugned orders passed by the State Commission and National Commission are
hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the State Commission for fresh
disposal of the complaint in accordance with law and on the points formulated hereinabove.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
J