Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

1. In this appeal, the appellant-Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. challenges judgement and order dated 16.08.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9502 of 2010, whereby learned Single Judge disposed of the petition by relegating the appellant to avail of alternative remedy of preferring appeal before the State Consumers Commission against the order passed by Consumer Forum, Bhuj.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal can be summarized as under:

2.4 Record revels that the appellant herein being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Kutch at Bhuj, in Complaint No. 234 of 2007 preferred Special Civil Application No. 9502 of 2010 before this Court contending that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in cases of theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that only the special court constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 has jurisdiction to entertain such complaint.

38. The complainants moved against the bill raised under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which relates to indulging in unauthorized use of electricity or against the measures under Section 135, which constituted an offence for which penalties are prescribed. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Companies.

Therefore, even if it is accepted that in the case of deficiency in service by the Electricity Companies in supply of electricity, the person can file a complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but in absence of any such allegation, no such petition is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In a case where the bill is raised alleging indulgence in unauthorizes use of electricity by a person under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the measures or the penal action taken for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in absence of any provision made under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain any complaint or any such action, we hold that the petitions preferred by the consumer - appellants were not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarize our findings as follows :-

(a) The finding of the learned Single Judge that there is a third forum of appeal under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in this type of cases under Section 126 or Section 135, is incorrect and does not lay down a correct law.

(b) The jurisdiction of the Consumer Court in the matter of deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Company is not ousted in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The finding of the learned Single Judge to that extent in general that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints in respect of the matter pertaining to supply of electricity against the Electricity Company is incorrect and does not lay down a correct law.