Holding

Supply of electric energy constitutes a "service" under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, making electricity users consumers within its ambit; the matter was remitted to the National Commission to record this finding and consider the notice issue.

Summary

Anwar Ali filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum alleging that his electricity supply was disconnected without prior notice. The Forum awarded him Rs 50,000 compensation with interest, an order upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board appealed, contending that a notice dated 20‑12‑1999 had been served before disconnection and that a consumer of electricity does not fall within the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the matter should be dealt with under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Supreme Court held that the supply of electric energy is a "service" under Section 2(o) and therefore electricity users are covered by the Consumer Protection Act. Since the National Commission had not addressed the consumer‑definition issue, the Court remitted the matter to it for a positive finding and to consider the notice‑service dispute. The appeal was partly allowed and the case was sent back without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether a consumer of electricity is covered by the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint concerning alleged non‑service of a disconnection notice, or whether the matter is barred by the Electricity Act, 2003.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 2(c), s. 2(d), s. 2(g), s. 2(i), s. 2(o)
Electricity Act, 2003s. 145
Sale of Goods Act, 1930

Subjects

Consumer Protection ActElectricity supplyDefinition of consumerConsumer jurisdictionNotice of disconnectionElectricity Act 2003Compensation

Judgment

. -f ACCOUNTS OFFICER, JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY A
BOARD AND ANR.
v.
ANWAR ALI

OCTOBER 9, 2007 B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
f
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(o):
c
Beneficial Consumer Jurisdiction-Electricity supply of
respondent discontinued by appellant-Board allegedly without serving
Notice-Complaint to District Consumer Forum-Forum awarding
a sum of Rs. 50, 0001-as compensation to respondent-Upheld by
State Commission-Affirmed by National Commission-On appeal, D
)
- Held: National Commission did not consider the question as to whether
consumer of electricity is a consumer in terms ofSection 2(o) of the
1986 Act-Hence, matter remitted to National Commission to record
a positive finding on the subject and also to consider the dispute
regarding alleged service ofNotices-Electricity Act, 2003. E
Respondent-consumer filed a complaint before the District
Consumer Forum that the electricity supply was discontinued by the
}-" appellant-Board without notice. The District Forum awarded
compensation of Rs. 50.000/- along with 12% interest per annum.
The order was upheld by the State Consumer Commission and, on F
appeal, the National Commission affirmed the same. Hence the
present appeal.

Appellant contended that the District Forum, the State
~/-
I Commission and the National Commission failed to appreciate that G
the notice of disconnection was given on 20.12.1999 and the
disconnection was made on 29.1.2000; and that the definition of
'Consumer' as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act does not cover a
consumer of electricity.
905 H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I 0 S.C.R.

A Respondent-consumer submitted that the District Forum, the 1- .
State Commission and the National Commission have categorically
found that no notice was given prior to disconnection and he has
taken a categorical stand that the notice dated 20.12.1999 has not
been served on him.
B
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: l.l. "Service" as defined under· Section 2(o) of the
Consumer Protection Act the mean service of any description which T
is made available to users in connection with banking, financing,
C insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical energy,
enterinment etc. Therefore, supply of electric energy by the Nigam
falls under Section 2(o) of the Act [Para 8] [908-C-D]
1.2. In view of the fact that the National Commission has not
D addressed the question as to whether consumer of electricity is
covered by the definition of 'Consumer' as defined in Section 2( o)
of the Act, the matter is remitted to the National Commission to
record a positive finding on the aspect. It shall also take into
consideration the dispute raised regarding the alleged service of
E notice dated 20.12.1999. [Para 10] [908-H; 909-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4734 of
2007.

From the Judgment and final Order dated 19.2.2004 of the National ;,i
p Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 355
of2004.

Nagendra Rai, and T. Mahipal for the Appellants.

Mansoor Ali, Paya! Mahajan and Ashok K. ·Mahajan for the
G Respondent. -y
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT P ASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

H 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National
f ACCOUNTS OFFICER, JHARKHAND STATE 907
ELECTRICITYBOARDv. ANWAR ALI [PASAYAT, J.]

.·f Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short 'the A
National Commission').
3. The appellants had questioned correctness of the findings
recorded by the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi (in short 'District
Forum') and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, B
Jharkhand, Ranchi (in short 'the State Commission') before the National
Commission.
y
4. The basic grievance of the respondent was that the electricity
supply was discontinued without notice. Compensation ofRs.50,000/-
was awarded along with 12% interest per annum by the District Forum
c
and upheld by the State Commission. The National Commission took the
view that since notice was given after disconnection, the action was clearly
unsustainable.
5. In support of the appeal, leaned counsel for the appellant submitted D

'
.... that the District Forum, the State Commission and the National
Commission failed to appreciate that the notice of disconnection was given
on 20.12.1999 and the disconnection was made on 29.1.2000.
Additionally, it was submitted that whether the consumer of electricity can
be covered under the provisions of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 E
(in short the 'Act') has not been considered by the National Commission.
6. Stand of the appellants is that the definition of 'Consumer' as
,."' defined in Section 2(o) of the Act does not cover a consumer of electricity.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted F
that the District Forum, the State Commission and the National
Commission have categorically found that no notice was given prior to
disconnection and the respondent has taken a categorical stand that the
notice dated 20.12.1999 has not been served on him.
,{.. G
8. 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. Under
Section 2(c) of the Act "complaint" is defined to mean allegation in writing
made by a complainant that the service provider has charged for the H
908 SUPREME COORT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A services, a price in excess of the price fixed under the law for the time
being in force (See: Section 2(c) (iv)]. Under Section 2(d) "consumer"
is defined to mean any person who hires or avails of any services for a
consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly
promised. Under Section 2(g) of the Act the word "deficiency" is defined
B to mean 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 under a contract or
otherwise in relation to any service. The word "goods" is defined under
Section 2(i) to mean goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
C "Service" also defined under Section 2(o) of the Act to mean service of
any description which is made available to users in connection with
banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical
energy, entertainment etc. Therefore, supply of electric energy by the
Nigan1 falls under Section 2(o) of the Act. However, the question which
D arises for determination and which has not been decided is : whether the
beneficial consumer jurisdiction extends to determination of tortuous acts
and liability arising therefrom by the Consumer Forum. In this connection,
-
it is urged on behalf of the Nigam that assessment of the duty for
unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, distribution of meters
E and calibration of electric current are matters of technical nature which
cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum. It is urged that under the
Electricity Act, 2003 the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded. In this
connection reliance was placed on Section 145 of the said 2003 Act
F under which the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suits in respect
of matters falling under Section 126 is expressly barred. These are matters
of assessment. It is stated that the 2003 Act is a complete Code by itself
and, therefore, in matters of assessment of electricity bills the Consumer
Forum should have directed the respondent to move before the competent
G authority under the Electricity Act, 2003 read with rules framed thereunder
-y
either expressly or by incorporation.
9. The above position was noted in Haryana State Electricity
Board V. Mam Chand [2006] 4 sec 649.

H 10. In view of the fact that the National Commission has not
ACCOUNTS OFFICER, JHARKHAND ST ATE 909
ELECTRICITYBOARDv. ANWARALI [PASAYAT,J.]
~ .f addressed the question as to whether consumer of electricity is covered A
by the definition of 'Consumer' as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act, we
set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the National
Commission to record a positive finding on the aspect. It shall also take
into consideration the dispute raised regarding the alleged service of notice
dated 20.12.1999. B
11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as
-y' to costs.
S.K.S. Appeal partly allowed.