ACCOUNTS OFFICER, JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. versus ANWAR ALI

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 09-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. -f 
ACCOUNTS OFFICER, JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY 
A 
BOARD AND ANR. 
v. 
ANWAR ALI 
OCTOBER 9, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND P. SATHASIV AM, 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 of Section 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 of Notices-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. 
F 
The order was upheld by the State Consumer Commission and, on 
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- . 
B 
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. 
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 ASAY AT, 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 [PASA YAT, 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/- c 
was awarded along with 12% interest per annum by the District Forum 
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.