LANDMARK JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Posted on 04 June 2010 by A.A.JOSE BARODA

Court
GUJARAT HIGH: Coram: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Brief
CONSUMER COURTS/COMMISSION HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN COMPLAINTS RELATING
TO ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, VIZ. THEFT OF ELECTRICITY U/S.135 AND UNAUATHORISED USE
U/S.126 OF THE ELCTRICITY ACT 2003. 3 SEPARATE FORUMS SUCH AS GRIEVANCE REDRESSA
L FORUM; OMBUDSMAN AND SPECIAL COURTS ARE CREATED UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT ITSE
LF. JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER FORA/COMMISSION IMPLIED BARRED.
Citation
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8264 & 12 OTHER SCAs
Judgement
SCA/8264/2009 1/51 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CI
VIL APPLICATION No. 8264 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8265 of 2009
With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8974 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
No. 12319 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9387 of 2009 With SPECIAL C
IVIL APPLICATION No. 9533 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 645 of 2009
With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12461 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
No. 9042 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10678 of 2009 With SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13374 of 2009 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13376 of 20
09 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ===================
====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may b
e allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whet
her their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this c
ase involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the const
itution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circ
ulated to the civil judge ? ====================================================
===== DEPUTY ENGINEER & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus JAGRUT NAGARIK & 2 - Respondent
(s) ========================================================= Appearance : Speci
al Civil Application Nos.8264, 8265, 8974, 9387, 9533 of 2009 MS LILU K BHAYA fo
r Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. MR SANDIP
C SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1 2. Special Civil Application No.12319 of 2009 MR SN
SINHA for Petitioner : 1-3 MR NAYAN D PAREKH for Respondent : 1 Special Civil A
pplication No.645 of 2009 MR SN SINHA for Petitioner : 1 MR JV BHAIRAVIA for Res
pondent : 1 Special Civil Application No.12461 of 2009 MR SP HASURKAR for Petiti
oner : 1 MR MITUL K SHELAT for Respondent : 2 Special Civil Application Nos.9042
, 10678, 13374 to 13376 of 2009 MR PREMAL R JOSHI for Petitioner : 1 MR SANDIP C
SHAH for Respondent : 1-2 MR HARSHIT S TOLIA for Respondent : 3 MR PARTH S TOLI
A for Respondent : 3 ========================================================= C
ORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date : 13/05/2010 CAV JUDGMENT 1. Since com
mon issue is involved in all these petitions and they are heard together, this c
ommon judgment and order is passed in all these petitions. 2. The only issue inv
olved in all these petitions is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forum to entertain the complaint filed by the consumer against
the electricity company with regard to supply of electricity and/or Bill thereo
f. The Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum has entertained all these complaints and
granted appropriate relief to the consumers against which the different electri
city companies have filed all these petitions before this Court challenging the
decision of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum for entertaining these complain
ts. In some of the cases, the Electricity Companies have firstly challenged the
order of the Forum before the Commission and after confirmation of the order of
the Forum by the Commission, petitions are filed before this Court. 3. Since the

legal issue involved in all these petitions is in a very narrow compass, facts
of all these petitions are not required to be narrated in detail and hence for t
he sake of convenience and easy reference, the facts are taken from Special Civi
l Application No.12319 of 2009. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the res
pondent consumer has been given industrial connection for running flour mill. In
course of a meter replacement drive the meter of the respondent was replaced on
28.1.2008 and sent to the laboratory at Junagadh for joint laboratory inspectio
n. The respondent was given notice to remain present for inspection on 24.7.2007
, 31.7.2009 and 7.8.2009. But the respondent did not appear and hence laboratory
inspection was carried out in his absence on 4.9.2009. It was found during the
course of inspection that MMB Seals and TC and TCC square are tampered with. It
was also noticed that the MMB Seals had been refixed. Moreover, male ad female p
arts of the TC had severe scratches. There were marks of scratches and of sparki
ng on terminal block B-Phase current coil was found burnt. With this evidence, i
t was clear that the consumer was using electricity dishonestly, which is an off
ence under Section-135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The supplementary bill of R
s.66,969.58 for power theft was accordingly served on the respondent as per prov
isions of the Supply Code of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission const
ituted under Section-50 of the Act. FIR was lodged at GEB Police Station, Rajkot
at No.II-2594/2009 on 12.10.2009. 5. Being aggrieved by the said supplementary
bill the respondent filed complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
Rajkot on 8.10.2009 and filed application Ex.5 for interim relief against disco
nnection. The District Forum on 16.10.2009 granted interim relief and issued dir
ection against disconnection of electricity supply to the respondent on conditio
n that the respondent consumer shall deposit 50% of the amount of the supplement
ary bill and also compounding charges of Rs.10,000/-. 6. It is this order of the
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum which is challenged in the present petition. S
imilarly in all other petitions the orders passed by the Consumer Dispute Redres
sal Forum and/or Commission are being challenged by the different electricity Co
mpanies. 7. Mr. S.N.Sinha, Ms. Nilu Bhaya, Mr.Premal Joshi and Mr.S.P.Hasurkar,
learned advocates are appearing for the petitioners electricity Companies. The m
ain submission of the learned advocates appearing for the electricity companies
are that the Parliament enacted the Electricity Act, 2003 which came into effect
from 10.6.2003. The preamble of the said Act reads as under :- An Act to consol
idate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and u
se of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to development of
electricity industry, promoting competition therein, protecting interest of cons
umers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalisation of electricity tar
iff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient a
nd environmentally benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authorit
y, Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for matter
s connected therewith or incidental thereto. While making the aforesaid Act the
Parliament has sought to consolidate all previous laws with respect to generatio
n and transmission of electricity and has provided for more methodical and scien
tific self-contained Code. 8. The different electricity companies are licensees,
who have been issued licenses by the appropriate Commission for transmission an
d distribution of electricity. The relationship between the electricity companie
s as licensees under Section. 2(39) and the consumer within the meaning Section
2(15) of the Act are, therefore, governed by the Act of 2003. 9. The aforesaid A
ct of 2003 for the first time provide Code called The Electricity Supply Code co
ntemplated under Section-50 of the Act. The said Section-50 of the Act reads as
under :- 50. The Electricity Supply Code :- The State Commission shall specify a
n Electricity Supply Code to provide for recovery of electricity charges, interv
als for billing of electricity charges, disconnection of supply of electricity f
or non-payment thereof, restoration of supply of electricity, tampering, distres
s or damage to electrical plat, electric lines or meter, entry of distribution l
icensee or any person acting on his behalf for disconnecting supply and removing
the meter, entry for replacing, altering or maintaining electric lines or elect
rical plant or meter. 10. The State Government has made the Electricity Supply C
ode in exercise of the powers under Section-50 of the Act. As it is evident on p

erusal of the Code, the said Code statutorily provides for the cases, inter alia
, with regard to the tampering of electric lines or meter and manner and method
of collection of electricity charges. The Electricity Act of 2003 defines the te
rm unauthorised use of electricity and provides for investigation and enforcemen
t under Section 126 and 127 of the Act. The term theft of electricity is defined
under Section-135 of the Act and theft of electric lines and materials is defin
ed under Section-136 of the Act. The offence committed under Section-135 of the
Act is required to be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Act. In t
he State of Gujarat Special Courts trying the offences under Section-135 of the
Act and other penal provisions of the Act, are already constituted and are funct
ioning. The said Courts are constituted under Sections 153 ad 154 of the Act, wh
ich have powers of Courts of Sessions under Section-155 of the Act, against whos
e order and decision, Appeal and revision are provided before this Court. The El
ectricity Act of 2003 specifically provides for a statutory provisions ousting t
he jurisdiction of Civil Courts and all other authorities under Section-145 of t
he Act. Section-173, 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003 give an overriding
effect over all other enactments. 11. The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commis
sion in exercise of its powers conferred under Section-181 read with Section 42(
5) of the Act, has framed Regulations for the purpose of establishment of Forums
for redressal of grievances of the consumers which are known as Gujarat Electri
city Regulatory Commission (Establishment of Forums for redressal of grievances
of consumers) Regulations, 2004. It is evident from the perusal of the said stat
utory Regulations, that the term complainant the term complaint and the term gri
evances are very widely worded under Clause 2(c)(d) and (g) of the Regulations.
The said Forums statutorily constituted, are already established and are functio
ning. The said forums are also conferred with powers of granting temporary injun
ction under Chapter-IV of the aforesaid Regulations. Similarly in exercise of po
wers conferred under Section-181 read with Section-42(6) of the Act, the Gujarat
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Establishment of Ombudsmen) Regulations, 200
4 are framed. This statutory scheme of the Act and the Special Forums constitute
d statutorily by the Act would make it clear that after enactment of a special l
aw, the general provisions made under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 stand i
mpliedly repealed in so far as the questions which can be gone into by special m
achinery provided under the special Act are concerned. A bare perusal of the abo
ve stated provisions of the Act makes it clear that it gives supremacy to the sa
id Act over all other enactments and, therefore, the provisions of the Consumers
Protection Act, 1986 would not apply to the cases covered by or under the provi
sions of the Act of 2003. 12. The further submission of the learned advocates ap
pearing for the electricity companies is that Section-3 of the Consumer Protecti
on Act also recognizes that the provisions of the Consumers Protection Act are i
n addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the t
ime being in force. When a special enactment is made by the Parliament to deal w
ith the specific offences/cases of mal-practice with regard to the said specific
enactment and specific Forums are constituted to deal with the disputes arising
under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Forums constituted under the provisions
of the Consumers Protection Act are ousted by implication. Unless and until the
question of jurisdiction of Forum is examined, interpreted and adjudicated in th
e above said manner, it is not possible to harmonize the Consumers Protection Ac
t, 1986 and the Electricity Act, 2003. 13. The proceedings under Sections 126, 1
27 and 135 of the Act of 2003 are initiated by the licensees for redressal of th
eir own grievances and, therefore, also such questions shall necessarily be out
of the purview of the Forums constituted under the Consumers Protection Act. Sin
ce the Electricity Act, 2003 is a special Act, general provisions should yield t
o the special provisions as held consistently by the Apex Court. In view of the
specific provisions contained in the Electricity Act, 2003 the Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum has no power to adjudicate the question of its own jurisdiction,
since it is bound by the decision taken by the National Consumers Disputes Redr
essal Commission reported in 2008 (II) CPJ, 284 and 2008 (IV) CPJ, 11 where the
National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission has held that the Consumers Pro
tection Act, 1986 statutorily prepared under Section-50 of the Act and the afore

said statutory Regulations do not stand for consideration of the Commission. Whi
le exercising its jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India th
is Court is not bound by the view taken by the Commission under the Consumers Pr
otection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the petitioners are justified in approaching
this Court praying for writ of prohibition. 14. In support of the submissions ca
nvassed by the learned counsels appearing for the Electricity Companies, relianc
e is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Elect
ricity Board Vs. Mam Chand, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 649, wherein the Court was
concerned with the scope and extent of the beneficial consumer jurisdiction, par
ticularly with regard to technical subjects falling under provisions such as the
Electricity Act, 2003. Under Section 2(c) of the 1986 Act complaint is defined
to mean allegation in writing made by a complainant that the service provider ha
s charged for the services, a price in excess of the price fixed under the law f
or the time being in force. Under Section 2(d) consumer is defined to mean any p
erson who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been pai
d or promised or partly paid and partly promised. Under Section-2(g) of the said
1986 Act the word deficiency is defined to mean any fault, imperfection, shortc
oming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is re
quired 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 u
nder Section 2(i) to mean goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Servi
ce also defined under Section 2(o) of the said 1986 Act to mean service of any d
escription which is made available to users in connection with banking, financin
g, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical energy, entertainment,
etc. Therefore, supply of electric energy by the Nigam falls under Section 2(o)
of the said 1986 Act. However, the question which arises for determination and
which has not been decided is: Whether the beneficial consumer jurisdiction exte
nds to determination of tortious acts and liability arising therefrom by the Con
sumer Forum. The assessment of the duty for unauthorised use of electricity, tam
pering of meters, distribution of meters and calibration of electric current are
matters of technical nature which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum. Unde
r the Electricity Act, 2003 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded. Und
er Section-145 of the said 2003 Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to enter
tain suits in respect of matters falling under Section-126 is expressly barred.
These are matters of assessment. The said 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 authority unde
r the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the rules framed thereunder either express
ly or by incorporation. The Court was, therefore, of the view that all these iss
ues raised on behalf of the Nigam require deeper consideration by the State Comm
ission. 15. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of
Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali, repor
ted in AIR 2008 SC 164, wherein the question was as to whether the consumer of e
lectricity can be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
wherein while setting aside the order passed by the National Commission the Cour
t remitted the matter to the National Commission giving direction to record a po
sitive finding on the aspect, as to whether consumer of electricity is covered b
y the definition of Consumer as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act, 1986. 16. Re
liance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maharasht
ra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Vs. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd., re
ported in AIR 2008 SC 1042, wherein it is observed that complaints of individual
consumers are outside jurisdiction of State Commission. Separate Forum for redr
essal of individual consumer's grievances has been created under Section-42 of t
he Electricity Act, 2003. All individual consumers' grievances should therefore,
be raised before such Forum. Thus, a complete machinery has been provided under
Section-42(5) and 42(6) for redressal of grievances of individual consumers. He
nce wherever a Forum/Ombudsman have been created the consumers can only resort t
o these bodies for redressal of their grievances. The Court has also referred to
Section-86 of the Act which lays down the function of the State Commission. Sub
-section (1)(f) of the said Section lays down the adjudicatory function of the S

tate Commission which does not encompass within its domain complaints of individ
ual consumers. It only provides that the Commission can adjudicate upon the disp
utes between the licensees and generating companies and to refer any such disput
e for arbitration. This does not include in it an individual consumer. The prope
r forum for that is Section 42(5) and, thereafter, Section 42(6) read with Regul
ations of 2003. 17. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Delhi High Co
urt in CM(M) No.46 of 2007 in CM(M) No.46 of 2007, wherein it is observed that,
it is with deep anguish that this Court notes the continuous conduct of the Cons
umer Forums in proceeding with such matters despite the orders passed by various
Courts from time to time. It is trite to say that no Consumer Forum can pass an
order contrary to the orders passed by the High Courts or in breach thereof. Ev
en subsequently interim orders have been passed by the Court and this Court is b
eing burdened with numerous litigations only arising from this attitude of Consu
mer Forums since Consumer Forums are not desisting from taking actions where it
has been held that Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction. The Court has issued th
e general direction to the effect that in matters of theft of electricity and di
shonest abstraction of energy in case the Consumer Forums pass any order, the el
ectricity companies will not be liable to give effect to the same. The Court fur
ther directed the State Commission and the Consumer Forums not to pass any inter
im orders in respect of complaints of consumer where issue of direct theft of el
ectricity or dishonest abstraction of electrical energy is alleged. 18. Reliance
is also placed on the decision of Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission ( i
n Petition No.950 of 2008) wherein it is observed that the power and the jurisdi
ction to hear cases under Section-135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is only with
special Court established under Section-153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 19. Ev
en in the case of Jagmohan Mehatabsingh Gujaral and others Vs. State of Maharash
tra, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 629, it is held that large-scale theft of electric
ity is a very alarming problem found by all the State Electricity Boards in our
country which is causing loss to the State revenue running in hundreds of crores
of rupees every year. 20. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court
in C.R.A. No.28 of 2010 filed by PGVCL Vs. Smt. Bhartiben Aniruddhsinh Jadeja a
gainst an interim order in Complaint No.92 of 2010, of Consumer Disputes Redress
al Forum, Rajkot, wherein Commission has held that this is not a case of simple
theft but it is technical modus operandi of committing theft of electricity in m
ass in Saurastra region. The Commission has further held that in case of theft,
Special Court has jurisdiction to determine the Civil liability against consumer
. District Forum has only jurisdiction to conduct the case against electricity c
ompany where there is deficiency in service but not in case of theft of electric
ity. The Commission has held that only Special Court has jurisdiction and Forum
has no jurisdiction to conduct such type of cases which can be disposed of summa
rily. 21. On the basis of the above judgments of this Court as well as Apex Cour
t as well as the orders passed by the Regulatory Commission, it was strongly urg
ed before the Court that all these orders passed by the Consumer Dispute Redress
al Forum and/or Commission deserve to be quashed and set aside as they have no j
urisdiction to entertain such complaints filed by the consumer. 22. On behalf of
the respondents, learned advocates Mr.Sandip Shah, Mr.J.V. Bhairavia and Mr.Mit
ul Shelat appeared and strongly opposed all these petitions. In Special Civil Ap
plication No.9042 of 2009 though Mr.Harshid Tolia appears on behalf of the respo
ndent No.3, he supported the case of the petitioner electricity company as he is
representing the landlord and his grievance is against the tenants being respon
dent Nos.1 and 2 in the said petition. The main submissions canvassed on behalf
of the respondents, while opposing all these petitions are that the comparative
study of Electricity Act, 2003 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nowhere reveal
s any specific exclusion of the jurisdiction of Consumer Courts to deal with the
problems of supply of electric energy to customers / consumers. It is well sett
led principle of law that there has to be specific exclusion of jurisdiction of
any authority or any court by specific provision in that behalf. Section 145 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 specifically excludes jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Bu
t there is no exclusion of jurisdiction of Consumer Courts established under Con
sumer Protection Act. It cannot be said that since Civil Court's jurisdiction is

ousted, by necessary implication jurisdiction of Consumer Courts is also ousted

. On the contrary Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act makes it clear that t
he said Act is not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of this Act sh
all be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law f
or the time being in force. When Consumer Protection Act, 1996 was introduced, e
arlier provisions of Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity Supply Act were in fo
rce. Section 2(1)(d)(ii) defines consumer means any person who hires or avails o
f any services for consideration which has been paid or promised. Section 2(1)(o
) defines service means service of any description which is made available to po
tential users and includes, but not limited to, the provisions of facilities in
connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of
electrical or other energy.... etc. Hence, it includes services of electrical en
ergy. Section 2(1)(g) defines deficiency in service means any fault, imperfectio
n, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance wh
ich is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force
or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract o
r otherwise in relation to any service. It is, therefore, clear that Consumer Co
urts established under Consumer Protection Act can entertain and decide the disp
ute between the parties relating to deficiency in service relating to supply of
electrical energy. 23. The provisions of Sections 173, 174 and 175 of the Electr
icity Act, 2003 make it clear that legislature was aware regarding jurisdiction
of consumer courts under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and hence, it
is provided under Section 173 of the Act that nothing contained in this Act or
any rule or regulation made thereunder or any instrument having effect by virtue
of this Act, rule or regulation shall have effect in so far as it is inconsiste
nt with any other provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 174 of th
e Act shall have an overriding effect. It says that save as otherwise provided i
n Section 173, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anyt
hing inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in for
ce or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any other law than this Act.
Section 175 of the Act makes it clear that the provisions of this Act are in add
ition to and not in derogation of other laws for the time being in force. It is,
therefore, contended that when there is no specific provision of excluding juri
sdiction of Consumer Courts, it cannot be said that Consumer Courts have no powe
r to entertain and decide complaints alleging deficient services for supply of e
lectric energy. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of
Torrent Power A.E.C. Ltd. Vs. Gayatri Intermediates, reported in 2006 (2) GLR 15
80 which interprets Section 154 of the Electricity Act in which there is no expr
ess provision of exclusion of jurisdiction. Hence, it cannot be said that the Co
nsumer Courts cannot entertain the complaints involving deficiency in service. 2
4. If one reads definition of deficiency in service and definition of service in
Consumer Protection Act, it is very widely worded meaning thereby any person (c
onsumer) if files complaint before Consumer Court alleging deficiency in service
s on many counts including for example excessive bill, arbitrary action of elect
ricity office bearers, wrong reports made at the place or premises of consumer r
egarding meter or installed equipments, not acted as required under the law or p
rocedure established under provisions of Electricity Act or other similar grieva
nces, Consumer Courts have jurisdiction to entertain to decide such complaints.
It is difficult to segregate allegations of theft of electrical energy, which is
alleged by officers of Electricity Company, since it is based on inspection of
any premises in which electrical supply is given. There are factual disputes bet
ween the parties which need to be decided. The allegations of tempering with met
er and theft of electricity are to be provided, and officers cannot be permitted
to act arbitrarily on presumption of theft and take resort to immediate disconn
ection and recovery of additional amount on the ground of provisional assessment
on the basis of alleged theft. In case of defect in meter there are provisions
under Section 126 to refer the dispute to the Electrical Inspector. So far as as
sessment or provisional assessment on allegations of theft of electrical energy
are concerned in all cases it is alleged that theft is committed and simply by a
lleging theft and action thereon, jurisdiction vested in Consumer Courts cannot

be taken away by such necessary implication saying that it has no jurisdiction s

ince there appears to be theft. 25. It is further contended that if any complain
t is lodged alleging excessive bill which is issued by electricity company, on m
any grounds namely, improper recording of meter, non-use of electrical energy, e
arlier use of consumer on average basis, extra ordinary high recording of use of
energy due to defects in meter or other equipments, high handed action of offic
e bearers of Electricity Company, improper recording and notes of inspection rep
ort, arbitrary decision of inspector or officer of Electricity Company not sendi
ng meter to Electrical Inspector and suddenly disconnecting the electric supply
which is essential services to every customer, exploiting and harassing attitude
of officers of company, asking for illegal gratification, unjust bargain, proce
dure not followed which is required to be followed under the law, hearing not gi
ven etc. On all such averments, alleging deficient services consumer can approac
h competent Court of law which is Consumer Courts which are headed by highest Ju
dicial Officers and acting in legal manner. 26. The provisions of Electricity Ac
t, 2003 are not complete code in itself since it does not provide for any compen
sation in favour of consumer and even in theft cases, action in Special Courts i
s action in Criminal Procedure Code for imposing punishment on consumer who is t
reated as accused. So far as the word unauthorized use of electricity and theft
are concerned, both situations are dealt with in Electricity Act in different ma
nner and action under Section 126 and action under Section 135 are different. As
held in the decision of this court in the case of Torrent Power A.E.C. Ltd. Vs.
Gayatri Intermediates, (Supra) theft is with motive and unauthorized use of ele
ctrical energy is without motive. In a given case when consumer's premises is in
spected and without hearing his electricity supply is disconnected and customer
is asked to pay heavy amount of bill even on provisional assessment, he is oblig
ed to pay said amount with or without protest for getting restoration of electri
c supply, which can never be intention of legislature and consumer cannot be rem
ediless. Exactly for such reasons even though strict measures are provided in El
ectricity Act, 2003, the legislature thought it fit to retain powers of consumer
Courts and not excluded by inserting any specific provisions like Section 145 o
f the said Act. 27. The most important and basic difference in both Acts are tha
t Consumer Courts are granted power to award compensation in Section 14(d) besid
es directions to remove defects or deficiencies in the services in question. The
arguments that under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, special Court
is empowered to decide civil liability, is misconceived and improper since if t
he section is read closely it shows that the special Court may determine the civ
il liability against the consumer or person in terms of money for theft of energ
y which shall not be less than an amount equal to two times of tariff rate appli
cable for a period of 12 months preceding the date of detection of theft of ener
gy or the exact period of theft if determined whichever is less and the amount o
f civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of Civ
il Court. Simple reading of this section means that the civil liability i.e. com
pensation can be awarded against consumer and not in favour of consumer and henc
e there is no provision by which consumer can claim compensation under Electrici
ty Act, hence, only under provisions of Consumer Protection Act any consumer can
file complaint alleging deficient services and also claiming compensation which
is object of Consumer Protection Act, particularly when power of Civil Court ar
e taken away under Section 145 of the Act. 28. In interpreting two parallel prov
isions of law dealing with same situations time and again by various decisions o
f the Apex Court, it has been held that if two views are possible, one view whic
h is beneficial to citizen shall be taken to safeguard interest of public at lar
ge. Needless to say that provisions of Consumer Protection Act is beneficial pie
ce of legislation with object to protect and safeguard interest of any citizen a
nd hence should be liberally construed by Court of law. It is, therefore, conten
ded that all these petitions filed by the Electricity Company deserve to be dism
issed by observing that the Consumer Courts have jurisdiction to entertain and d
ecide the complaints in which deficiency in service including high handed action
of allegations of theft of electrical energy are made by any person. 29. Learne
d advocates appearing on behalf of the respondent consumers, in support of their

submissions relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharthi House Building Coop. Society and others, reported in
(2003) 2 SCC 412 wherein it is held that the Consumer Protection Act was enacte
d keeping in view the long-felt necessity protecting the common man from wrongs
wherefor the ordinary law for all intent and purport had become illusory. In ter
ms of the said Act, a consumer is entitled to participate in the proceedings dir
ectly as a result whereof his helplessness against a powerful business house may
be taken care of. It is further held that it is evident from Section 3 of the A
ct that remedies provided thereunder are not in derogation of those provided und
er other laws. The Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the civ
il courts or other statutory authorities. The Act provides for a further safegua
rd to the effect that in the event a complaint involves complicated issues requi
ring recording of evidence of experts, the complainant would be at liberty to ap
proach the civil court for appropriate relief. The provisions of the said Act ar
e required to be interpreted as broadly as possible. The forums under the Act ha
ve jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite the fact that other forums/cour
ts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis. 30. Reliance is also
placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan
Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L. Rs. A
nd others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 448, wherein it is held that Consumer Forum h
as jurisdiction to decide the dispute between members and cooperative society as
neither S.99 nor S.156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 ousts
the jurisdiction of consumer Forum. The remedies that are available to an aggri
eved party under the Consumer Protection Act are wider. For instance in addition
to granting a specific relief the forums under the Consumer Protection Act have
jurisdiction to award compensation for the mental agony, suffering, etc., which
possibly could not be given under S.90 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act
. Merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the members and
the management of the society under the Act and forums are provided, it cannot t
ake away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the forums under the Consumer
Protection Act expressly and intentionally to serve a definite cause in terms of
the objects and reasons of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the view taken b
y the State Commission that the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Soc
ieties Act relating to reference of disputes to arbitration shall prevail over t
he provisions of the Consumer Act is incorrect and untenable. 31. Reliance is al
so placed on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
in the case of Jharkhand State Electricity Board and another Vs. Anwar Ali, rep
orted in 2008 (2) C.P.J. 284, wherein it is held that the provisions of the Cons
umer Protection Act are specifically saved under Section 173 r/w. Section 174 of
the Electricity Act. Therefore, the provisions are required to be reasonably co
nstrued to make them in harmony with each other as far as possible, and, hence,
the Court has kept in mind that to 'harmonize' means 'not to destroy' and/or to
hold that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable for r
edressal in case of grievances of a consumer against the Electricity Board or su
ch authority. It is further held that the consumer forum would have jurisdiction
to entertain the complaint against the final order passed by the assessing offi
cer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The jurisdiction of the Consumer F
orum is not barred by any provisions of Electricity Act, but the same is express
ly saved under Section 173 r/w. Sections 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act. Rel
iance is also placed on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
Vs. Megh Raj, reported in 2008 (4) C.P.J. 11 wherein the proposition of law mad
e in earlier decision were reiterated. 32. Having heard the learned counsels app
earing for the parties and having considered their rival submissions in light of
statutory provisions contained in the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 and the decided case law on the subject, the Court is of t
he view that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints
in respect of the matters pertaining to supply of electricity, against the elect
ricity companies. 33. Looking to the provisions contained in Electricity Act, 20
03 as well as Supply of Electricity Code framed thereunder, it is clear that onc

e the consumers are indulged in theft of electricity and for that theft bills un
der Section-135 of the Act have been issued the Consumer Forum has no jurisdicti
on to entertain the complaints filed by the consumers nor such Forum can pass an
y interim order directing the electricity Company to grant electricity connectio
n. As per the provisions contained in Section-153 of the Electricity Act the Spe
cial Courts have been constituted and as per the provisions of Sections-153 and
154 of the Act the Consumer Court has no power to entertain any complaint when t
here is theft of electricity. In exercise of the power conferred under Section-1
81 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and under Section-12 of the Gujarat Electricity
Industries (Re-organization and Regulations) Act, 2003, Gujarat Electricity Regu
latory Commission has framed Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electric
ity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2005. The Regulation 7.9 deals
with the powers of the Special Courts. As per Regulation 7.9.1 every offence pu
nishable under Sections 135 to 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 shall be triable
only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been commi
tted. In view of these provisions, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to ent
ertain any matter relating to theft of electricity. 34. Once the electricity com
pany issues bill under Section-126 of the Act for unauthorized use of electricit
y, the consumer must approach the Appellate Authority under Section-127 of the A
ct. It does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Regulation 7
.3 deals with provisional assessment. Regulation 7.4 deals with objection agains
t provisional assessment and 7.5 deals with Appeal against final assessment orde
r to Appellate Authority. As per Regulation 7.5.1 any person aggrieved by a fina
l order made under sub clause 7.4.1 (Section-126 of the Electricity Act, 2003) m
ay, within 30 days of the said order, prefers an appeal to the Appellate Authori
ty. Considering this provision the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. 35. Even
under the provisions of Section-42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the Consumer
can file the complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum constituted u
nder the Act and against the decision of Forum an Appeal can be filed before the
Electricity Ombudsmen under Section 42(7) of th Act. Thus, there are three diff
erent Forums available for the consumers for ventilating their grievances and he
nce after the Act, 2003 and after availability of all the three different Forums
, the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection
Act shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the consume
rs with regard to the electricity disputes. All the judgments which are cited in
support of the consumers are prior to the Act of 2003 and hence they cannot be
pressed into service while deciding the controversy involved in the present grou
p of petitions. The Apex Court as well as different High Courts including this C
ourt have clearly held that depending upon the nature of dispute the consumer ma
y either approach the Consumer Forum constituted under the Electricity Act or to
the Appellate Authority or to the Special Court and there is no justification i
n filing any complaint before the Consumer Forum or in entertaining such complai
nt by the Consumer Forum. 36. As stated above, under the Electricity Act, 2003 t
he jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded. Under Section-145 of the Act, th
e jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain Suits in respect of matters falling u
nder Section-126 of the Act is expressly barred. Hence, the Consumer Forum, eith
er expressly or by incorporation should direct the consumers to approach the com
petent authority under the Electricity Act. 37. In Jharkhand State Electricity B
oard & Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali (Supra), the Apex Court, while considering the scope a
nd extent of the beneficial consumer legislation, particularly with regard to te
chnical subjects falling under provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, set asid
e the order impugned therein and remitted the matter to National Commission to r
ecord positive finding on the question as to whether consumer of electricity is
covered by the definition of consumer as defined in Section-2(o) of the Act. 38.
In Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., (Supra), the Apex Court
has very categorically held that complaints of individual consumers are outside
the scope of State Commission and that all individual consumers' grievances sho
uld be raised before a Forum/Ombudsman as provided under Section 42(5) and 42(6)
of the Act. 39. The Delhi High Court has gone a step further and issued general
directions to all Consumer Forums and Commissions within its jurisdiction not t

o pass any interim orders in respect of complaints of consumer where issue of di

rect theft of electricity or dishonest abstraction of electrical energy is alleg
ed. 40. Awarding of compensation by Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protectio
n Act is not a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums. Claim for c
ompensation pre-supposes deficiency of service, the determination of which is be
ing made by the competent forums, authorities and Courts under the Electricity A
ct and hence the Consumer Forums and/or Commissions are not entitled to entertai
n such disputes. 41. In General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. (2009) I
II CPJ 71 (SC), the Apex Court was concerned with the dispute regarding non-paym
ent of telephone bill for the telephone connection provided to the respondent an
d for the said non-payment of the bill the telephone connection was disconnected
. Aggrieved by the said disconnection, the respondent filed complaint before the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The Forum allowed the complaint and directed
the telephone Company to reconnect the telephone connection and pay compensatio
n of Rs.5,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. The matter went up to the Apex Court a
nd it is held by the Apex Court that when there is a special remedy provided in
Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telepho
ne bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication ba
rred. Even with regard to awarding compensation, the Apex Court referred to its
own earlier decision in the case of Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporatio
n Vs. Consumer Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC, 479, wherein it was held that th
e National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensa
tion arising out of motor vehicles accidents. The Court agreed with this view ta
ken in the said judgment. 42. In view of the above legal position, the Court is
of the firm view that the Consumer Forum and/or Commission should not make any v
enture to entertain the complaints filed by the consumers against the Electricit
y Companies. This Court is not so harsh as the Delhi High Court which has direct
ed all Consumer Forums and Commissions falling within its jurisdiction not to en
tertain any complaint against the Electricity Company. However, at the same time
it is expected that when the Statute, if not expressly, but by implication, bar
s the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums as observed by the Apex Court in the case
of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. (Supra), the same jurisdictio
n shall not be exercised by the Consumer Forum. Despite this fact, the Court has
found in the present group of petitions that the Consumer Forums have not only
entertained the complaints but, for non-compliance of its order have also entert
ained execution proceedings and orders were passed for attachment of the propert
ies of the Electricity Companies. Even the disputes between the tenants and land
lords with regard to electricity connection have been entertained by the Consume
r Forum. This is obviously beyond the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the
Consumer Forum and such matters should not have been entertained by the Consume
r Forum. 43. In view of the above discussion, the Court allows all these petitio
ns and the impugned orders passed by the Consumer Forum and/or the Commission ar
e hereby quashed and set aside. It is open for the petitioners Electricity Compa
nies to take appropriate action as a result of quashing of the said orders. Purs
uant to the interim orders passed by the Forums and/or Commissions if any electr
ic connection is granted to the consumer the same may also be affected as all th
ese interim as well as final orders stand quashed and set aside. Rule in each of
these petitions is made absolute without any order as to costs. (K. A. PUJ, J.)
kks