LexKARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. & ANR. versus ASHOK IRON WORKS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R.1109 - i KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. & ANR. A v. ASHOK IRON WORKS PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No 1879 of 2003) FEBRUARY 9, 2009 B [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] ,. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: ss. 2(1) (d), 2(1)(m), 2(1)(o) and 2(1)(g) - 'consumer', c 'person', 'service' 'deficiency' - Complaint by a manufacturing unit claiming damages from Kamataka Power Transmission Corporation for delay in supply of electricity relating to the period prior to amendment of s.2(1)(d)(ii) by Act 62 of 2002 - Held: Definition of 'person' in s.2(1)(m) is inclusive and not D ..... ~ exhaustive - Company is a person within the meaning of s.2(1)(d) r/w s.2(1)(m) - Supply of electricity to a consumer by KPTC is not sale of electricity, but would be covered u/s 2(1)(o) being service and, if the supply is not provided within the time stipulated, there may be a case of deficiency of E service as provided uls 2(1 )(g)-Therefore, the complaint is maintainable - Interpretation of Statutes. WORDS AND PHRASES : • Expression 'includes' as occurring in s. 2(1 )(m) of F Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Connotation of. The respondent in C.A. No. 1879 of 2003, a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacture of iron products, filed a complaint under the Consumer G Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum claiming damages from the -t appellant-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation for <" • delay in supply of electricity. It was stated that the money demanded was deposited on 1.2.1991 whereas the 1109 H 1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R. A supply of power commenced in the month of November, 1992. The appellant-Corporation raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the complaint contending that the complainant was engaged in commercial activity and electricity being 'goods', sale B thereof to a commercial consumer for commercial purpose was outside the purview of the Act. The District Forum rejected the complaint as not maintainable. The State Commission and the National Commission having held the complaint maintainable, the Corporation filed the c appeal. The appellant in Civil Appeal No.17784 of 2002, a sole proprietor of a battery charging unit, filed a complaint before the District Forum challenging the demand raised by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation. The D District Forum held in favour of the appellant. But the State Commission and the National Commission having held that the complainant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of s. 2 (1) (d) of the Act, he filed the appeal. E The questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) "Is a private limited company a 'person' as contemplated under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? (ii) "Whether the supply of electricity by KPTC to a consumer is sale and purchase F of goods within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Act, 1986?" and (iii) whether the supply of electricity by KPTC would come within the ambit of s. 2 (1) (o) of the 1986 Act so as to be covered within the purview of sub- clause (ii) of Clause (d) of s. 2 (1) of the Act? G Dismissing Civil Appeal No. 1879 of 2003 and allowing Civil Appeal No. 7784 of 2002, the Court HELD:1. Section 2(1 )(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While defining 'person' cannot be held to be H restrictive or confined to the four categories enumerated . - KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. & ANR. 1111 v. ASHOK IRON WORKS PVT. LTD. - "f therein, namely, (i) a firm whether registered or not; (ii) a A Hindu undivided family; (iii) a co-operative society; and (iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not. It is not said in terms that 'person' shall mean one or other of the four things enumated, but that it s~all include them. The B definition of 'person' in s.2(1 )(m) is inclusive and not exhaustive. There is no doubt that company is a person . within the meaning of s.2(1)(d) read with s.2(1)(m). [para 15 and 18] [1119-E; 1120-B-D] The South Gujarat Roofing Tiles manufacturers c Association and Anr. v. The State of Gujarat and Anr. (1976) 4 SCC 601 and Reserve Bank of India v.Peer/ess General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 424, referred to D _, .. Lord Watson in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps (1899) AC 99, referred to 2.1. Supply of electricity
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.