Supreme Court of India

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusRAJESH KUMAR CHIMANLAL BAROT AND ANR.

Citation: 1996 INSC 820
Decided: 5 August 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: S P BHARUCHAS C SEN

Holding

If a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum lacks jurisdiction over a matter, the appellate court must set aside its order, regardless of the parties or the quantum involved.

Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had upheld a Gram Panchayat's claim to a subsidised electricity rate. The appellant argued that the question of pricing did not fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer redressal forums. The Supreme Court held that jurisdictional limits are strict: if a forum lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court must set aside its order, irrespective of the parties involved, the amount in dispute, or the duration of the contract. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order of the National Commission was set aside, and the claim before the State Commission was dismissed. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a dispute concerning the pricing of subsidised electricity falls within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Subjects

Consumer Protection ActjurisdictionConsumer Disputes Redressal Forumpricing disputesubsidised electricityGram Panchayatappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                         THE STATE OF GUJARAT                                       A
                                       v.
          RAJESH KUMAR CHIMANLAL BAROT AND ANR.

                              AUGUST 5, 1996

                  [S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]                                 B

        Consumer Pmtection Act, 1986 :

       Consumer Disputes Redressa/ Fontm-Jwisdiction-Adjudication of
dispute by State Commission not falling within the pwview of the Fo11un-Ef-         C
feet of-Held, if a cowt does not have j1m'sdiction, it is the obligation of the
appellate Court so to hold and set aside the order under appeat-Having
regard lo the fact that the question of p1icing did not "legitimately fall within
the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Fo11uns'~
order under appeal is set aside and the claim made by the respondents before
the State Commission is dismissed.                                                  D
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10191 of
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.93 of the National Con-
sumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in A. No. 160 of 1992.                E
        Yashank Adhyaru and Ms. H. Wahi for the Appellants.

        M. Barot and Ms. H. Khatun for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :                            F
        Delay condoned.

        Leave granted.

      The order under appeal is passed by the national Consumer Disputes            G
Redressal Commi'5ion in first appeal against an order of the State Com-
mission.

        The order under appeal opens with these words :

          'Although there is substantial force in the contention advanced by        H
                                     279
    280                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A            the learned Advocate General, Mr. Thakore, appearing on behalf
             of the appellant, that the question of pricing does not legitimately
             fall within the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes
             Redressal Forums, regard being had to the· peculiar facts and
             circumstances of the case where only a very small period of about
             10 months is involved and the party concerned is a Gram
B            Panchayat, which is claiming benefit of subsidised rate of 25 paise
             per unit in respect of electricity consumed by it for the supply of
             drinking water to its residents from a bore-well, we are not inclined
             to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission uphold-
             ing the right of the panchayat to the benefit of the said subsidy."
c          We find this very difficult to appreciate. If a court does not have
    jurisdiction, it does not have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that one of
    the parties involved is a Gram Panchayat or the period involved is very
    short or the amount involved is very small. If a court does not have
    jurisdiction, it is the obligation of the appellate court so to hold and to set
D   aside the order under appeal.

          Having regard to the fact that the dispute did not "legitimately fall
    within the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal
    Forums", the appeal is allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and the
    claim made by the respondents before the Slate Commission is dismissed.
E
           There shall be no order as to costs.

    R.P.                                                         Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Consumer Protection Act"Sign in to search