U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. versus ANIS AHMED

Citation: [2013] 13 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 01-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 388 
.~ 
~ 
, .. , __ 
A 
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
~-y 
v. 
ANIS AHMED 
(Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012) 
8 
JULY 1, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
~ 
Electricity Act, 2003 -
ss. 126 and 135 to 140 -
c Complaint before Consumer Forum against final order of 
assessment made u/s. 126 of the Electricity Act or action taken 
ulss. 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act - Maintainability of -
Held: A "complaint" against assessment made by assessing 
officer u/s. 126 or against offences committed u/ss. 135 to 140 
D 
of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before a Consumer 
Forum - The Electricity Act and the Consumer Protection Act 
run parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within 
meaning of "consumer" uls.2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection 
Act or the Central Government or the State Government or 
E 
association of consumers but it is limited to dispute relating 
to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted 
by the service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers from 
deficiency in service';· or "hazardous service';· or "the .service 
' 
x ..,· 
provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by 
I 
or under any law" - In case of inconsistency between the 
. 
F 
Electricity Act and the Consumer Protection Act, the 
provisions of Censumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso 
facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to 
redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not 
come within the meaning of "service" as defined uls.2(1)(o) 
).__ ~ 
G or "complaint" as defined u/s.2(1 )(c) of the Consumer 
Protection Act - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s.2(1)(c), 
2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o). 
Dispute arose as to whether a complaint under the 
H 
388 
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 
389 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the final 
A 
assessment order passed under Section 126 of the 
Electricity Act, 2003 is maintainable before the Consumer 
Forum. 
The appellants contended: (!'!) that proceedings 
under Sections 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 
2003 are not related to deficiency of service in the supply 
8 
of electricity by the service providers under the Electricity 
Act, 2003 and therefore, complaints against proceedings 
under Section 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 
C 
are not maintainable before the Forum constituted under 
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and (b) that in 
absence of any inconsistency between Sections 126, 127, 
135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions of 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 173 and 17 4 of 
the Electricity Act, 2003 are not attracted. 
D 
- The questions therefore involved in the instant 
appeals were: a) whether complaints filed by the 
respondents before the Consumer Forum constituted 
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were 
E 
maintainable; and b) ,whether the Consumer Forum has 
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer 
or any person against ~he assessment made under 
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or action. taken 
under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. "Consumer" is defined under Section 2(1 )(d) 
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From a bare 
, ~ 
reading of the section aforesaid it is clear that person(s) 
G 
availing services for 'commercial purpose' do not fall 
within the meaning of "consumer" and' cannot be a 
"complaincint" for: the purpose of filing a "complaint" 
before the Consumer Forum. "Service" as defined under 
Section 2(1 )(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 
H 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 13 S.C.R. 
A includes supply of electrical or other energy. A consumer 
within the meaning under Section 2(1) (d) may file a valid 
complaint in respect of supply of electrical or other 
energy, if the complaint contains allegation of unfair trade 
practice or restrictive trade practice; or there is a defective 
B goods; deficiency in services; hazardous services or a 
price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law etc. 
[Paras 22, 23) [410-Ci 411-B-C, F] 
2. In the instant case, it is clear that the respondents 
had electrical connections for industrial/commercial 
C purpose and, therefore, they do not come within the 
meaning of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1 )(d) 
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; they cannot be 
treated as "complainant" nor they are entitled t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.