National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Tejpal Singh vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. on 13 January, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1664 OF 2025
(From the order dated 31.10.2025 in FA No. 146/2021 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand )
With IA /15694-95 of 2025 ( grant of stay, exemption to file typed copies of
documents)
Tej Pal Singh .... Petitioner (s)
s/o Late Sh. Roda Singh
r/o Village Shantar Shah
P.S.Bahadrabad, Roorkee, District Haridwar
Uttarakhand-249401
Versus
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Respondent(s)
Through its Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division ( Urban)
Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand 249401
REVISION PETITION NO. 1668 OF 2025
(From the order dated 06.11.2025 in FA No. 13/2020 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand )
With IA /15708-09 of 2025 ( grant of stay, exemption to file typed copies of
documents)
Sh. Raja Ram Petitioner (s)
s/o Late Sh. Roda Singh
r/o Village Shantar Shah
P.S.Bahadrabad, Roorkee, District Haridwar
Uttarakhand-249401
Versus
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Respondent(s)
Through its Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division ( Urban)
Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand 249401
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
RP/1664&1668/2025 Page 1 of 4
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Ayush Kasana and Ms. Bhawna,
Advocates
Dated : 13.01.2026
ORDER
1. Heard counsel for the Petitioner.
2. In RP No. 1664 of 2025, challenge is to the order dated 31.10.2025 vide which Appeal filed by the respondent herein ( appellant before the State Commission) was allowed and order of the District Commission was set aside and certain directions were issued. Extract of the relevant paras of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below:
15. ^om the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is established on record that the matter between the parties in regard to the correction of the billing amount. So in our opinion, if the respondent is consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, then such matter should be referred to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of Electricity Department for ' decision.
16. We have perused the record. It is pertinent to mention that the Electricity Act, 2003 is a Special Act and over rides the general law. The Section 181 read with Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 have conferred power on the Regulatory Commission to frame regulations to cany out of the object and the Hon'ble Commission has framed Uttarakhand Regulatory Commission (The Electricity Supply Code) 2007 published in official gazette on 17.04.2007. By virtue of Section 42(5), the law has established in this act a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for resolving the dispute in the matter relating to electricity bills and in our view, the present dispute should have been referred for decision to the CGRF and the complaint as per above provision should not be filed in the District Commission, it should actually be filed before the CGRF for getting the bills rectified from the department.
Hence, we are of the definite opinion that the complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission.
RP/1664&1668/2025 Page 2 of 417 Thus, we are of the'considered view that there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant and the District Commission has failed to appreciate the relevant provisions of law and has not perused the facts and law properly and appropriately. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is liable to be allowed.
18. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the District Commission, Haridwar is hereby set aside. Consumer complaint shall stand as dismissed. No order as to costs of appeal. Respondent - complainant is at liberty to submit his dispute, if any, before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5). The respondent complainant may also file fresh complaint / application for adjudication before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum within a period of three months from today. In case of filing the complaint before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, thesame shall not be treated to be time barred.
3. After carefully considering of the order of the State Commission and other relevant records and contention of the Petitioner herein, we are of the considered view that State Commission has passed a well reasoned order and we do not see any reason to interfere with its findings. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments1 that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction.
1 Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC Online SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson (India ) Limited and Ors, (2016) 8 SCC 286, T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31 RP/1664&1668/2025 Page 3 of 4
4. State Commission has already given opportunity to the Petitioner herein to submit his dispute with respect to the billing amount, if any, before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under section 42(5). Accordingly, order of the State Commission is upheld and RP No 1664 of 2025 is dismissed.
5. RP No. 1668 of 2025 also involves similar facts and challenge is to the order dated 0611.2025 in appeal no. 13 of 2020. This RP is also disposed off in terms of our above stated order in RP No. 1664 of 2025. Accordingly, RP No. 1668 of 2025 is also dismissed.
6. Pending lAs, if any, also stand disposed off.
Sd/-
( DR. INDER JIT SINGH ).
PRESIDING MEMBER A
Sd/- • 1
(DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J) !-
' MEMBER
Am/B-3/AB/6-7
RP/1664&1668/2025 Page 4 of 4