Holding

A complaint against the assessment made under Section 126 or the offences committed under Sections 135‑140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether industrial/commercial electricity users could file complaints before a Consumer Forum against assessment orders under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or actions under Sections 135‑140 of the same Act. The petitioners (U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others) argued that such proceedings do not relate to deficiency of service and therefore are outside the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondents (including Anis Ahmed) claimed the complaints were maintainable. The Court held that the respondents were not “consumers” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act because they used electricity for commercial purposes, and the alleged acts of unauthorized use do not fall within the definition of a “complaint” under Section 2(1)(c). Consequently, complaints against assessments or offences under the Electricity Act are not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. The Court set aside the National Commission’s orders and allowed the appeals filed by the service provider‑licensees.

Issues considered

Whether a complaint against a final assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is maintainable before a Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints against offences under Sections 135‑140 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Legislation cited

Atomic Energy Act, 1962
Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 173, s. 174, s. 175, s. 2(1)(c), s. 2(1)(d), s. 2(1)(o), s. 3
Electricity Act, 2003s. 126, s. 127, s. 135, s. 136, s. 137, s. 138, s. 14, s. 140, s. 145, s. 153, s. 173, s. 174, s. 175, s. 42, s. 50
Railways Act, 1989

Subjects

Electricity ActConsumer Protection Actassessment orderunauthorised use of electricityconsumer forum jurisdictionindustrial consumerspecial courttheft of electricitydeficiency of service

Judgment

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 388
~ ,
.~, __
.
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. ~-y
A
v.
ANIS AHMED
(Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012)
JULY 1, 2013
8
[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
provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by
x ..,·I'
F
or under any law" - In case of inconsistency between the .
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 8
under Sections 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act,
2003 are not related to deficiency of service in the supply
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 174 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 to file any
"complaint" before the Consumer Forum. Admittedly, the
D complainants made their grievance against final order of
assessment passed under Section 126 of the Electricity ......
Act, 2003. None of the respondents alleged that the
appellant(s) used unfair trade practice or a restrictive
trade practice or there is deficiency in service(s) or
E hazardous service(s) or price fixed by the appellant(s) is
excess to the price fixed under any law etc. In absence
of any allegation as stipulated under Sectioh 2(1)(c) of the
Consumer Protection Act,1986, their complaints are not
maintainable. Therefore, the complaint filed by the
F respondents were not maintainable before the Consumer
Forum. [Paras 24, 25 and 26) [411-G-H; 412-A-D]
3. From a bare reading of Section 126 and Sections
135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is clear that while
G acts of "unauthorized use of electricity" attracts civil
consequence of penal charge of electricity, twice the rate
of electricity, for which assessment is made by assessing
officer under Section 126; the very same acts of
"unauthorized use of electricity", constitute "offences"
under Section 135 to 140 for which sentence and fine has
H
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 391

been prescribed. As per Section 153 of the Electricity Act, A
* 2003, Special Courts are to be constituted for speedy trial
for the offences referred· to in Sections 135 to 140. The
Civil Court's jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect
to the decision of assessing officer under Section 126,
or decision of appellate authority under Section 127 is B
barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act,2003.
[Paras 35, 36, 37] [422-E-G; ·423-F-G]

_--l,. 4. Vide the impugned majority judgment, the National
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission placed
.._. much reliance on sub sections (5) and (6) of Section 42 c
of the Electricity Act, 2003 to derive power to adjudicate
dispute arising out of Section 126, but it failed to notice
that Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not
applicable in the case of licensee who is a trader or
supplier of electricity but it relates to "distribution D
.., )r- licensees". [Para ·38] [424-8-C]
5.1. Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers
the Appropriate Commission to grant a licence to any
person to "transmit electricity" or "to distribute E
electricity" or "to undertake trading in electricity".
Amongst the three categories of licensee(s) viz."
transmission licensee"; "distribution licensee" and the
... x "licensee to undertake trading in electricity", the
provisions with respect to "distribution licensees" have
F
been provided under Part VI of the Electricity Act, 2003
but not the two other licensees. Bare perusal of Part VI
and Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 makes it further
clear. [Paras 39, 40] [424-D; G-H;--425-A]
...: _A. 5.2. Section 50 of the Ele~tricity Act, 2003 empowers G
the State Commission to specify an Electricity Supply
Code to provide for recovery of electricity charges,
intervals for billing of electricity charges, measures for
preventing damage to electrical plant or electrical line or
H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.C.R.

A meter, entry of distribution licensee etc. From reading
Section 50, it is clear that under the Electricity Supply
Code provisions are to be made for recovery of electricity
charges, billing of electricity charges, disconnection etc.
and measures for preventing tampering, distress or
B damage to the electrical plant or line or meter etc. But the
said code do not relate to assessment of charges for
"unauthorized use of electricity" under Section 126 or
action to be taken against those committing 'offences'
under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003. .f--..
c [Para 41] [427-E-F; 428-A-C]
5.3. Limitation under Section 173, 174 and 175 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is only qua the scope of Consumer
-
Protection Act. [Para 42] [428-C-D]

D 6. Inconsistency would arise only if the provisions of
the Electricity Act, 2003 run counter to the provisions of -1' ;
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or if while enforcing
provision on one statute, provisions of other statute is
violated. The entire object and reasons of Consumer
E Protection Act is not crossed over by the Electricity Act,
2003 and whenever such situation arise the Electricity
Act, 2003 has left the option open for the consumer to
take recourse under other Laws. [Para 43] [428-H; 429-
A-BJ ~ ....
F 7. The National Commission though held that the
intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction
of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection
Act and have saved the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act, failed to notice that by virtue of Section 3
G of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections 173,174 ,A_·,.
and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Consumer Forum
cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation
to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under
Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, as the acts of
H
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 393

indulging in "unauthorized use of electricity" as defined A
under Section 126 or committing offence under Sections
135 to 140 do not fall within the meaning of "complaint"
as defined under Section 2(1 )(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. [Para 45] [429-G-H; 430-A-B]
B
8. The acts of indulgence in "unauthorized use of
electricity" by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the
Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003
neither has any relationship with "unfair trade practice"

- or "restrictive trade practice" or "deficiency in service"
nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the
licensee. Such acts of "unauthorized use of electricity"
has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the
C

price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in
'unauthorized use of electricity', do not fall within the
meaning of "complaint", and, therefore, the "complaint" D
against assessment under Section· 126 is not
maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The offences
referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a
Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the E
complaint against any action taken under Sections 135
to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable
... x before the Consumer Forum. [Para 46) [430-C-F]

8. It is therefore held that:
F
(i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity
Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the
provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail,
but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum
with the power to redress any dispute with regard to G
the matters which do not come within the meaning
of "service" as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or
"complaint" as defined under Section 2(1 )(c) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

......__
A (ii) A "complajnt" against the assessment made by
assessing officer under Section 126 or against the
offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a
Consumer Forum.
B
(iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal
to any person, who falls within the meaning of
"consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer -+---
c Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the
State Government or association of consumers but
it is limited to the 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";
D or "the service provider has charged a price in
~
excess of the price fixed by or under any law". [Para
47] [430-G-H; 431-A-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
E 5466 of 2012.

From the Judgment & Order dated 07.07.2011 .of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2417 of 2007. X. ...
F WITH

C.A. Nos. 5467-5468, 5469, 5470, 5471, 5472, 5473, 5474
& 5475 of 2012.

K.V. Viswanathan, L.N. Rao, Altaf Ahmad, Pradeep Misra, A._-;
G Suraj Singh, Jyoti Sharma, Dipak Bhattacharya, Rajat Jariwal,
Anupinder Jassal, Abhishek Kaushik, Manish Kumar Saran,
Vijay Kumar, B,V, Desai, Avijit Bhushan, Shreyas Mehrotra,
Pooja for the Appearing parties.

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 395

/- SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. The A
questions involved in these appeals are; a) whether complaints
filed by the respondents before the Consumer Forum
constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were
maintainable and; b) whether the Consumer Forum has
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer or any B
person against the assessment made under Section 126 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 or action taken under Sections 135 to 140
of the Electricity Act, 2003 .
.. ~
2. The National Consumers Disputes. Redressal
__. Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'National
c
Commission') by impugned majority judgment (of President and
one Member) dated 10th April, 2008 observed and held as
follows:

"xx xx xx xx D
'
'r' For the reasons stated below, in our view, the aforesaid
questions can be answered as under:

(i) In case of final assessment order passed under
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, if a consumer E
is aggrieved, he can file complaint under the
Consumer Protection Act. However, it is his option
to file complaint under the Consumer Protection
.... ~ Act or to file Appeal under Section 127 of the
Electricity Act. F

(ii) Further, against the final order passed by the
Appellant Authority under Section 127 of the
Electricity Act, no complaint can be entertained by
_,_J, the Consumer Fora
G
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
In view of the aforesaid settled law, the Consumer
fora would have jurisdiction to entertain complaint against H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A the final order passed by the assessing officer under ~
Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Further, the jurisdiction
of the consumer fora is not barred by any provisions of
the Electricity Act but the same is expressly saved under
Section 173 read with Sections 174 and 175 of the
8 Electricity Act. ·

v. In the result, we hold as under:

(i) Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and ,).__ <

Section 175 of the Electricity Act, provide that they
c are in addition and not in derogation of rights •
under any other law for the time being in force.
Therefore, the rights of the consumers under the
Consumer Protection Act are not affected by the
Electricity Act.
D
(ii) A bare reading of Sections 173, 174 and 175, ~
makes it clear that the intent of the Legislature is
not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora
constituted under the Consumer Protection Act.
The provisions of the Electricity Act have
E
overriding effect qua provisions of any other law
except that of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Railways
Act, 1989. ;:it., .~

F (iii) Section 42{8)of the Electricity Act specifically
provides that the remedies conferred on consumer
under sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 42
are without prejudice to the right which the
consumer may have apart from the rights
,4__ r..,,
G conferred upon him by those sub-sections.

(iv) Section 145 of the Electricity Act specifically bars
the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any
suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which
an assessing officer referred to in Section 126 or
H
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 397
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
an Appellate Authority referred to in Section 127 A
of the Electricity Act or the Adjudicating Officer
appointed under the Electricity Act, is empowered
to determine.

Second part of Section 145 provides that no
B
jurisdiction shall be granted by any Court or
Authority in respect of any action taken or to be
taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or
-..J.- under the Act. For this purpose, if we refer to

- Sections 173 and 174 and apply the principle laid
down there-under, it would mean that qua the
consumer fora there is inconsistency and,
therefore, 'other authority' would not include
consumer fora.
c

(v) Consumer of electrical energy provided by the D
Electricity Board or other Private Company, is a
consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(o)of the
Consumer Protection Act and a complaint alleging
any deficiency on the part of the Board or other
private company including any fault, imperfection, E
shortcoming or inadequacy in quality, nature and
manner of performance which is required to be
maintained by or under any law or in pursuance
~ ~ of any contract in relation to service, is
~

maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. F

Against the Assessment Order passed under
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, a consumer has
option either to file Appeal under Section 127 of
. _.._ the Electricity Act or to approach the Consumer
Fora by filing complaint. He has to select either G
of the remedy. However, before entertaining the
complaint, the Consumer Fora would direct the
Consumer to deposit an amount equal to one-
third of the assessed amount with the licensee
[similar to Section 127(2) of the Electricity Act]. H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A (vi) Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to interfere
with the initiation of criminal proceedings or the
final order passed by any Special Court
constituted under Section 153 or the civil liability
determined under Section 154 of the Electricity
B Act."

3. The judicial Member having not agreed with the majority
finding, by his minority judgment dated 16th April, 2008 held
as follows: -4--

c "14. In the result I hold as under:

(i) The provisions contained in Section 126 and 127
of Part XII of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not
inconsistent with the provisions of Consumer
D Protection Act, 1986 and consequently there is no
need to have resort to the provisions of Section
173 and 174 of the Electricity Act. The provisions
of the Consumer Protection Act and Electricity Act
can be given their full meaning and effect on the
ground (ii) Consumer fora constituted under the
E
Consumer Protection Act would have jurisdiction
to entertain only the complaints filed by a
consumer of electricity alleging any defect or
deficiency in the supply of electricity or alleging
adoption of any unfair trade practice by the
F supplier of electricity. (iii) The consumer fora
established under the Consumer Protection Act
have no jurisdiction over the matter relating to the
assessment of charges for unauthorized use of
electricity, tampering of meters etc.· as a/so over
G the matters which fall under the domain of special
Courts constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003."

Following the aforesaid majority decision dated 10th April,
2008, other cases were disposed of by the National
H Commission in similar terms by impugned orders dated 13th
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 399
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
,> , March, 2009, 29th March, 2011 and 7th July, 2011. By A
impugned order dated 13th March, 2009, giving reference to
the aforesaid judgment dated 10th April, 2008, the matter was
remitted to the State Consumers Disputes Redressal
Commission (hereinafter -referred to as the "State
Commission') for fresh decision. B
4. For determination of the issue involved in these appeals,
it is necessary to discuss the relevant facts as were pleaded
..-.A by the parties before the Consumer Fora. The same is
mentioned hereunder:
c
5. Case of Anis Ahmad,

Anis Ahmed filed a complaint before the District Consumer
Protection Forum, Moradabad and claimed that he is a
consumer of electricity having connection No.104427 with D
). sanctioned load of 6.5 horse power. He alleged that the
authorities of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. prepared a
fictitious checking report dated 17th July, 2003 and falsely
implicated the complainant that he had used more than
sanctioned load of 10 H.P. in his factory and on the basis of
E
fictitious report a proceeding was initiated on 15th April, 2004
followed by a bill No.5004369 dated 15th June, 2004
demanding a sum of Rs.2, 11,451/-. He prayed to direct the
.> .)<, appellant to correct the bill, withdraw the demand notice and
to pay the costs.
F
The appellant, U.P. State Corporation Ltd. filed the
objections regarding maintainability of the above said petition.
It was alleged that the complainant had industrial connection
which was disconnected earlier due to the arrears of electricity
: __-i. dues. On a checking held on 17th March, 2004 by Sub- G
Divisional Officer-II and Junior Engineer, it was found that the
LT. line of three phases passing from the other side of the
premises of the complainant was tapped with the cables
attached with the meter though they were disconnected earlier
H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A and the complainant was using full 10 horse power load by
committing theft of electricity by Qye-passing the meter.

6. Case of Rakhi Ghosh

Rakhi Ghosh claimed before the District Consumer
B Disputes Redressal Forum, at Suri, Birbhum, West Bengai, that
he is a consumer of electricity having Connection No.1/7884
with connected load of 20 H.P. He is running his husking mill
through connected load. He challenged the bill for Rs.3,73,935/ -"'---~
- raised by the West Bengal State Electricity Board which was
c raised on the ground of unauthorized extension of load of 8 H.P.

The appellant, West Bengal Electricity Board filed the
objections and raised the question of maintainability of the
application. It was stated that consumer was enjoying Industrial
D connection and, therefore, does not fall within the definition of
"consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was
further alleged that a police case being No.19/2005 dated 26th
February, 2005 has already been lodged against Rakhi Ghosh
for theft of electricity, therefore, the consumer forum has no
jurisdiction to entertain the application.
E
7. Case of Prithvi Pal Singh

Prithvi Pal Singh filed a complaint before the District
/l. ~
Consumer Protection Forum-II, Moradabad that he is a
F consumer having connection No.0102/102474 with a
sanctioned load of 6 KW. It was alleged that the U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd. got his premises inspected by its team and
subsequently sent a notice to him on 1st December, 2005. In
the said notice it was alleged that the Enforcement team on
;.___ :
G inspection made on 25th November, 2004 flilund that the
complainant was committing theft of electricity by making a cut
at the cable prior to meter and was using excess load. He
challenged the bill raised by the Corporation for Rs.1,45,546/-
and prayed for compensation of 10,000/- for harassment.
H
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 401
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
~ ,;.- The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. filed objections A
~ and raised the question of maintainability of the petition. It was
alleged that on checking, a cut mark on three phase cable
before the meter was detected by which the complainant was
committing theft of electricity of 13 KW by bye-passing the
meter. A bill for Rs. 1,99,805/- was raised for theft of the B
electricity.

8. Case of Zulfikar

· Zulfikar filed a .complaint before the District Consumer
Protect Forum-II, Moradabad, challenging a notice of c
assessment. He stated that he is a consumer of commercial
electricity connection bearing No.3293/115275, the sanctioned
load of which is 3 KW. According to him on receipt of notice
he enquired about the same to the appellant and came to know
that on the basis of checking report they have issued the bill. It D
was alleged that the said checking report dated 22nd July, 2004
is false and fabricated and no checking was done on the
premises of the complainant.

The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. filed objections
E
raising the question of maintainability of the complaint on the
ground that the complainant Zulfikar had commercial
connection and hence does not fall within the definition of
'Consumer'. It was alleged that Enforcement Squad and
• .~ Assistant Engineer (Raids) on 22nd July, 2004 raided the
premises of the. complainant and during the inspection found F
that 4 leads of the PV~ cable of electricity line leading to the
meter had been cut and bye-passing the same, 5. 76 KW load
was being used by the complainarit illegally. They alleged theft
of electricity against the complainant for which an assessment
notice was issued. It was contended that theft of electricity does G
not amount to deficiency in service, therefore, the Consumer
Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition
regarding the theft of the electricity under the Consumer
Protection Act.
H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A 9. Case of Shahzadey Alam -4..._ ~
Shahzadey Alam filed a complaint case before the District
Consumer Protection Forum-II, Moradabad challenging the
revenue assessment notice dated 9th February, 2005 and
requested to pay the compensation for mental and physical
8
agony. In his petition Shahzadey Alam stated that he was
consumer of electricity connection No.0832782700, having a
sanctioned load of 2 KW. On 20th October, 1986, the officials
of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. disconnected the aforesaid
electricity connection for non-payment of Suvidh Shulka. As the
C said electricity connection was not required for the complainant,
he did not get the same restored. It is alleged that in spite of
the same, the complainant received a notice of assessment on
16th February, 2005.

D The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on
appearance challenged the maintainability of the petition before
the Consumer Forum. It was stated that the complainant had
himself admitted that his electricity connection was
disconnected on 20th October, 1986, therefore, the petition was
E not maintainable. It was further alleged that the complainant has
a factory which was raided and checked by the enforcement
·squad on 24th January, 2005 at 4.10 hours and that it was found
that the complainant was committing theft of electricity by cutting
three phase cable going near his premises to the connection x •
F No.2783/116398 of L.M.V.-11 category of Shri Javed ·and by
connecting it with 15 meters cable and using 4.70 K.W. load
and that no valid connection was found in the premises of the
complainant. Therefore, the complainant was asked to deposit
compounding fee of Rs.1,02,400/-, but he has not deposited
.it. On the basis of the report a notice was issued to the
· G complainant.

10. Case of Atul Kumar Gupta

Atul Kumar Gupta filed a complaint before the District .
H Consumer Protection Forum-II, Moradabad, stating that he is
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 403
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

> a consumer of electricity connection No.1034/117269, having A
sanctioned load of 7.5 KW. It is alleged that the electricity
connection of the complainant has been disconnected on 29th
February, 2003 on the ground of outstanding electricity charges.
Later on, the appellant informed that a case in connection with
checking is under consideration and, therefore, the connection 8
of the complainant cannot be restored. The complainant alleged
that on 13th March, 2004 he received Revenue assessment
notice alongwith a checking report No.164 dated 1st March,
~ 2004, though no checking was conducted at the premises of
the complainant on 1st March, 2004. He prayed for cancellation c
of the assessment notice dated 10th March, 2004 and claimed
compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and
financial loss.

The appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., in their reply
raised the question of maintainability of the petition in view of D
)._ the fact that the complainant's connection was disconnected on
28th February, 2003 and that on inspection it was found that
he was committing theft of electricity by pilferage of electricity.

11. Case of Tauseef Ahmed E
Tauseef Ahmed moved before the District Consumer
Protection Forum-II, Moradabad and stated that he is a
consumer of electricity having connection No.115694 with
~ '1'
sanctioned load of 2 KW. He alleged that three employees of
F
the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. visited his premises. Out of
them one represented himself to be the Junior Engineer and
demanded bribe of Rs.6,000/- illegally. As he refused to pay
the amount, a notice was served on him on 8th September,
2004 along with a report dated 11th August, 2004 and a bill
.- _...l for Rs.1,94,382/- was raised. He challenged the bill before the G
District Forum.

The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on appearance raised
the question of maintainability of the petition, one of the grourids
taken was that the complainant has already filed an Original Suit H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.C.R.

A No.391 of 2004 (Tauseef Ahmed vs. Uttar Pradesh Power
Corporation) for the same relief before the Court of Civil Judge
"(Junior Division), Moradabad in which summons has already
been issued and the matter is pending. It was alleged that the
premises of the claimant was checked on 11th August, 2004
B in the presence of the complainant and on checking it was found
that 6.945 KW of electricity had been illegally used instead of
sanctioned load of 2 KW. It was brought to the notice of the
Forum that U!)e of excess l_oad than the sanctioned electric load
for any other purpose for which connection has been granted,
.c comes within the meaning of "pilferage of electricity" as defined
under U.P. Electricity (Consumers) Regulation, 1984 for which
notice of assessment was sent to the complainant for recovery
of sum of Rs.1,94,382/- which on hearing the parties was
finalized to be Rs.1,07,985/- vide order dated 1st Octob~r.
D 2004.
12. Case of Mohd. Yunus

Mohd. Yunus filed a complaint before the District
Consumer Protection Forum-II, Moradabad claiming to be a
E consumer of commercial electricity having connection No.2701/
0-98494, with sanctioned load of 5 KW. It was alleged that on
the basis of a checking report dated 17th November, 2004
revenue assessment notice dated 1st February, 2005 was
served on him. He sought for a copy of the report and came to
F know that Junior Engineer had sent a false checking report to
the Divisional Office because of non-payment of monthly •
"Suvidha Sulk" by the complainant. He challenged the revenue
assessment notice dated 1st February, 2005 and claimed
compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental suffering and financial
G loss.
The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on appearance raised
the question of maintainability of the petition. It was stated that
the complainant is a consumer of L.M.V.-11 category using
electricity for commercial purposes, therefore, he does not fall
H under the definition of "consumer", as defined under Section
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 405
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
> 2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It was further alleged A
that on 17th November, 2004 on checking of the premises of
the complainant by Sub-Divisional Officer-II, Moradabad and
Junior Engineer it was found that the complainant was using
the connection for industrial purposes under L.M.V.-6 category
without any prior consent of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. B
He was using electrical energy for the purposes other than the
purpose for which it was sanctioned. Therefore, the
complainant was ~ound to be guilty of pilferage of electricity .
..-----+

- 13. All the cases against the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
were filed 'before the District Consumer Protection Forum-II,
Moradabad. The decision having given in favour of the
complainants, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd moved before the
c

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow which by its common judgment dated 31st
January, 2007/lst February, 2007 dismissed all the revision D
)..
petitions filed by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.

14. For the said reason all the cases in which the question
of jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum were raised, they were
heard and decided by the National Commission initially by the E
impugned judgment dated 10th April, 2008/16th April, 2008,
followed by other orders.

/
~ Submissions:
.. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended as under: F

(a) The proceedings under Sections126, 127, 135 etc. of
the Electricity Act, 2003 initiated by the service providers are
not related to deficiency of service in the supply of electricity
~~
by the service providers under the Electricity Act, 2003. G
Therefore, the complaints against the proceedings under
Section 126, 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not
maintainable before the Forum constituted under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.

(b) In absence of any inconsistency between Sections 12~. H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 13 S.C.R.
,
___

~
A 127, 135 etc. of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 173 and 174 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 are not attracted.

16. Per contra, according to the respondents, a complaint
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the final
B
assessment order passed under Section 126 of the Electricity
Act, 2003 is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

17. To determine the question, it would be appropriate to L.
refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons and relevant
c provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as quoted ....
below:

"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide
D for better protection of the interests of consumers and for
the purpose, to make provision for the establishment of
Consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement
of consumer disputes and for matter connected therewith.

E 2. It seeks, inter alia, to promote and protect the rights of
consumers such as-

(a) the right to be protected against marketing
of goods which are hazardous to life and ~ '

property; ...
F
(b) the right to be informed about the quality,
quantity, potency, purity, standard and price
of goods to protect the consumer against
unfair trade practices; )..._-
G
(c) the right to be assured, wherever possible,
access to an authority of goods at
competitive prices;

(d) the right to be heard and to be assured that
H
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 407
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
consumers interests will receive due A
consideration at appropriate forums;

(e) the right to seek redressal against unfair
trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation
of consumers; and 8
(f) right to consumer education ..

3. These objects are sought to be promoted and protected
......----+ by the Consumer Protection Council to be established at

- the Central and State level.

4. To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer
c

disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be setup
at the district, State and Central levels. These quasi-
judicial bodies will observe the principles of natural justice G)
and have been empowered to give relief of a specific
nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation
to consumers. Penalties for noncompliance of the orders
given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been
provided."
E
Scope of consumer complaint

18. "Consumer dispute" is defined under Section 2(e) of
#-
'j..
.
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner:

"2(e) "consumer dispute" means a dispute where the F
person against whom a complaint has been made, denies
or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint."

Therefore, for a valid consumer dispute an assertion and
-~ denial of a valid complaint is must. G
19. "Complaint" is defined under Section 2(1) (c) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner:

"2(1)(c) "complaint" means any allegation in writing made
by a complainant that- H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A (i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade
practice has been adopted by (any trader or
service provider ;

(ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by
him suffer from one or more defects;
B
(iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be
hired or availed of by him suffer from
deficiency in any respect; ~

c (Iv) a trader or the service provider, as the case
may be, has charged for the goods or for the
services mentioned in the complaint, a price In
-
excess of the price-

(a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in
D
force;

(b) displayed on the goods or any package
containing such goods;

E (c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by
or under any law for the time being inforce;

(d) agreed between the parties;

(v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when
F used, are being-offered for sale to the public-

(a) in contravention of any standard relating to safety
of such goods as required to be complied with, by
or under any law for the time being in force;
G (b) if the trader could have known with due diligence
that the goods so offered are unsafe to the public;

(vi) services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous
to life and safety of the public when used, are being offered
H by the service provider which such person could have
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTO. v. ANIS AHMED 409
[SU0 HANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
0

>- known with due diligence to be injurious to life and safety; A

with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this
Act;"

Therefore, it is only in respect to aforementioned aspects
B
that a consumer complaint can be filed viz.

* Unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice.

* When there is a defective goods.
c
- * Deficiency in services
* Hazardous goods

* Hazardous services

* a price in excess of the price fixed under any law etc. D

20. Deficiency of service is defined under Section 2(g) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner:

"2(g) "deficiency"means any fault, imperfection, E
shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and
manner of performance which 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
, )l
a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."
F
Therefore, it is clear that nature of transaction under
Section 126 does not come within the ambit of "complaint".

21. Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
defines "complainant" as follows: G

"2(1)(b) "complainant" means-

(i) a consumer; or

(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.C.R.

A under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under
any other law for the time being in force; or .'·
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government;
or
B (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous
consumers having the same interest;

(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or
representative; who or which makes a complaint;" ~~
c 22. Whereas "consumer'' is defined under Section 2(1)(d)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner:

"2(1)(d) "consumer'' means any person who-{i) buys any
goods for a consideration which has been paid or
D promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any
system of deferred payment and includes any user of such
goods other than the person who buys such goods for
consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly
promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when
E such use is made with the approval of such person, but
does not include a person who obtains such goods for
resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) (hires or avails of] any services for a consideration
which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly
F
promised, or under any system of deferred payment and
includes any beneficiary of such services other than the
person· who [hires or avails of] the services for
consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly
promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when
G such services are availed of with the approval of the first
mentioned person; (but does not include a person who
avails of such services for any commercial purpose;)

Exp/anation.-For the purposes of this clause, "commercial
H purpose" does not include use by a person of goods
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 411
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

>- bought and used by him and services availed by him
exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by
A

means of self-employment;"

From a bare reading of the section aforesaid it is clear
that person(s) availing services for 'commercial purpose' do not B
fall within the meaning of "consumer" and cannot be a
"complainant" for the purpose of filing a "complaint" before the
Consumer Forum .

...--.+ 23. "Service" as defined under Section 2(1 )(o) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 includes supply of electrical or c
.... 0th.er energy and reads as follows:

"2(1)(o)"service" means service of any description which
is made available to potential (users and includes, but not
limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with D
banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply
).- of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both,
(housing construction,) entertainment, amosement or the
purveying of news or other information, but does not
include the rendering of any service free of charge or under E
a contract of personal service."

Therefore, 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 ttie complaint contains allegation
of unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice; or there is F
a defective goods; deficiency in services; hazardous services
or a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law etc.

Maintainabilitv of comelaint filed bl£ the reseondents.
--..__j. 24. From the facts narrated in the preceding paragraph it G
is clear that Anis Ahmed, Rakhi Ghosh, Prithvi Pal Singh,
Zulfikar, Shahzadey Alam, Atul Kumar Gupta, Tauseef Ahmed
and Mohd. Yunus had electrical connections for industrial/
commercial purpose and, therefore, they do not come within
the meaning of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) H
412 SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; they cannot be treated
as "complainant" nor they are entitled to file any "complaint"
before the Consumer Forum.

25. Admittedly, the complainants made their grievance
B against final order of assessment passed under Section 126
of the Electricity Act, 2003. None of the respondents alleged
that the appellant(s) used unfair trade practice or a restrictive
trade practice or there is deficiency in service(s) or hazardous
service(s) or price fixed by the appellant(s) is excess to the price
fixed under any law etc. In absence of any allegation as
C stipulated under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, their complaints were not maintainable.

26. Therefore, we hold that the complaint filed by the
respondents were not maintainable before the Consumer
D Forum.

Maintainability of a complaint before the Consumer
Forum against final order of assessment made under
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or action taken
E under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003

27. ·section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 defines
'consumer' in.the following manner:

"2(15). "consumer" means any person who is supplied
F with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the
Government or by any other person engaged in the
business of supplying electricity to the public under this
Act or any other law for the time being in force and
includes any person whose premises are for the time
G being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity
with the works of a licensee, the Government or such
other person, as the case may be;"

28. From a bare reading of section aforesaid we find that
the "consumer'' as defined under Section 2(15) includes any
H person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 413
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
A
. >- licensee and also includes any person whose premises are for
the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity
with the works of a licensee, irrespective of the fact whether
such person is supplied with electricity for his own use or not.
Per contra under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986those who were supplied with electricity for 8
commercial purpose and those who do not avail services for
consideration, irrespective of electricity connection in their
premises do not come within the meaning of "consumer".
---+ 29. Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the
c
assessing officer to make assessment in case of "unauthorized
use of electricity''. It provides that if on an inspection of any
place or premises or after inspection of the equipments,
gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after
inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing
officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging D
)c in "unauthorized use of electricity", he shall assess the electricity
charges payable by such person or by any other person
benefitted by such use, the Section reads as under:

"126.Assessment.- (1) If on an inspection of any place E
or premises or after inspection of the equipments,
gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or
after inspection of records maintained by any person, the
assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such
:i.-
person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he F
shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgement
the electricity charges payable by such person or by any
other person benefited by such use.

(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served
upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge G
of the place or premises in such manner as may be
prescribed.

(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under
subsection (2) shall be entitled to file objections, if any, H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A against the provisional assessment before the assessing
officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity
of hearing to such person, pass a final order of
assessment within thirty days from the date of service of
such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity
B charges payable by such person.

(4) Any person served with the order of provisional
assessment, may, accept such assessment and deposit
the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days
of service of such provisional assessment order upon
c him.

(5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that
unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the
assessment shall be made for the entire period during
D which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken
place and if, however, the period during which such
unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be
ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of
twelve months immediately preceding the date of
E inspection.

(6) The assessment under this section shall be made at
a rate,equal to (twice) the tariff applicable for the relevant
category of services specified in sub-section (5).

F Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-

(a) • assessing officer" means an officer of a State
Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be,
designated as such by the State Government;
G (b) " unauthorised use of electricity" means the
usage of electricity -

(i) by any artificial means; or

H (ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 415
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
person or authority or licensee; or A

(iii) through a tampered meter; or

(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of
electricity was authorized; or
B
(v) for the premises or areas other than those for
which the supply of electricity was authorized."

30. Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars the
jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in C
respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in
Section 126. A separate provision of appeal to the appellate
authority has been prescribed under Section 127 so that any
person aggrieved by the final order made under Section 126,
may within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal, which D
reads as under:

127.Appeal to appellate authority.- (1) Any person
aggrieved by the final order made under section 126
may, within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal
in such form, verified in such manner and be E
accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the
State Commission, to an appellate authority as may be
prescribed.

(2) No appeal against an order of assessment under sub- F
section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal
to half of the assessed amount is deposited in cash or
by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary
evidence of such deposit has been enclosed along with
the appeal.
G
(3) The appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1)
shall dispose of the appeal after hearing the parties and
pass appropriate order and send copy of the order to the
assessing officer and the appellant.
H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A (4) The order of the appellate authority referred to in sub-
section (1) passed under sub-section (3) shall be final.

(5) No appeal shall lie to the appellate authority referred
to in sub -section (1) against the final order made with
the consent of the parties.
B
(6) When a person defaults in making payment of
assessed amount, he, in addition to the assessed
amount, shall be liable to pay, on the expiry of thirty days
from the date of order of assessment, an amount of
c interest at the rate of sixteen per cent per annum
compounded every six months."

Therefore, it is clear that after notice of provisional
assessment to the person indulged in unauthorized use of
0 electricity, the final decision by an assessing officer, who is a
public servant, on the assessment of "unauthorized use of
electricity"is a "Quasi Judicial" decision and does not fall within
the meaning of "consumer dispute" under Section 2(1) (e) of
·the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
E 31. Part XIV of the Electricity Act, 2003 relates to "offences
and penalties". If Section 126 is read with Section 135 to 140
it will be clear that various acts of "unauthorized use of
electricity" constitute "offences" mentioned under Sections 135
to 140 and attracts sentence and fine as prescribed therein.
F
32. For proper appreciation, we refer to Section 135 which
relates to "theft of electricity". Interference with meters or work
of licensee, taping of electricity, making or causing to be made
any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines
G or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee;
tampering of meter, installation or use of tampered meter, loop
connection or any other device or l')'lethod which interferes with
accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of
electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby
H electricity is stolen or wasted; damaging or destroys of an
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 417
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
>"- electrical meter, apparatus, equipment, use of electricity through A
a tampered meter; use of electricity for the purpose other than
for which the usage of electricity was authorized constitute "theft
of electricity" and constitute "offence" under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as follows:
B
"135. Theft of electricity.- (1) Whoever, dishonestly,--

(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any
-~ + connection with overhead, underground or under
water lines or cables, or service wires, or service
facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may C
be; or

(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered
meter, current reversing transformer, loop
connection or any other device or method which 0
interferes with accurate or proper registration,
calibration or metering of electric current or .
otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity
is stolen or wasted; or

(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, E
apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows
any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to
interfere with the proper or accurate metering of
electricity; or
F
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or

(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for
which the usage of electricity was authorised,
-.----'.
so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be G
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years or with fine or with both:

Provided that in a case where the load abstracted,
consumed, or used or attempted ·abstraction or H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 13 S.C.R.

A attempted consumption or attempted use-- -"""\
(i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed
on first conviction shall not be less than three
times the financial gain on account of such theft
of electricity and in the event of second or
B
subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not
be less than six times the financial gain on
account of such theft of electricity;
+,~'
(ii) exceeds 10 Kilowatt, the fine imposed on first
c conviction shall not be less than three times the
financial gain on account of such theft of electricity
and in the event of second or subsequent
conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for
a term not less than six months, but which may
D extend to five years and with fine not less than six
times the financial gain on account of such theft
of electricity:

Provided further that in the event of second and
subsequent conviction of a person where the load
E
abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction
or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10
kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting
any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be ~ ,
less than three months but may extend to two years and
F shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity
for that period from any other source or generating
station:
Provided also that if it is provided that any artificial
A_-
G means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee
or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction,
consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall
be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any
abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been
H dishonestly caused by such consumer.
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 419
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, A
the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon
detection of such theft of electricity, immediately
disconnect the supply of electricity:

Provided that only such officer of the licensee or 8
supplier, as authorised for the purpose by the
Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the
licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank
higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the
,. supply line of electricity:
c
Provided further that such officer of the licensee or
supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in
writing relating to the commission of such offence in
police station having jurisdiction within twenty four hour
from the time of such disconnect: D

Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the
case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed
amount or electricity charges in accordance with the
provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the E
obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the
second proviso to this clause., restore the supply line of
electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or
payment;]

(2) Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may F
be, authorised in this behalf by the State Government
may--

(a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place
or premises in which he has reason to believe that G
electricity [has been or is being], u-sed
unauthorisedly;

(b) search, seize and remove all such devices,
instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article
H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A which [has been or is being], used for unauthorised
use of electricity;

(c) examine or seize any books of account or
documents which in his opinion shall be useful for
B or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the
offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person
from whose custody such books of account or
documents are seized to make copies thereof or
take extracts therefrom in his presence.
c (3) The occupant of the place of search or any person ·-'
on his behalf· shall remain present during the search and
a list of all things seized in the course of such search
shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or
person who shall sign the list:
D
Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of
any domestic places or domestic premises shall be
carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the
presence of an adult male member occupying such
premises.
E
(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure shall
apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under ~ •
this Act."
F
33. "Theft of electric lines and materials" constitute offence
under Section 136; whereas "receiving stolen property"
constitute offence under Section 137. Interference with meters
or works of licensee unauthorisedly connecting any meter,
G · indicator or apparatus with any electric line; unauthorise
reconnection of any meter, indicator or apparatus with electric
line or other works; laying or causing to be laid, or connecting
any works for the purpose of communicating with any other
works belonging to a licensee; or injuring any meter, indicator,
H or apparatus beloni:Jing to a licensee maliciously et9. constitute
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 421
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
"offences" which attracts punishment under Section 138 of the A
Electricity Act, 2003. Section 138 of the Electricity Act reads
as follows:

"138.lnterference with meters or works of licensee.-(1)

Whoever,- B

(a) unauthorised/y connects any meter, indicator
or apparatus with any electric line through which
~·,,.+ electricity is supplied by a licensee or disconnects
the same from any such electric line; or c
~·

(b) unauthorised/y reconnects any meter, indicator
ot apparatus with any electric line or other works
being the property of a licensee when the said
electric line· or other wofKs has or have been cut
D
or disconnected; or
x
,.
""'' (c) lays or causes to be laid, or connects up any
works for the purpose of communicating with any
other works belonging to a licensee; or
E
(d) maliciously injures any meter, indicator, or
apparatus belonging to a licensee or willfully or
fraudulently alters the index of any such meter,
-~ ~ indicator or apparatus or prevents any such meter,
indicator or apparatus from duly registering;
F
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend
to ten thousand rupees, or with both, and, in the case of
a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend
to five hundred rupees; and if it is proved that any means G
exist for making such connection as is referred to in
clause (a) or such reconnection as is referred to in clause
(b), or such communication _as is referred to in clause (c),
for causing such alteration or prevention as is referred
to in clause (d), and that the meter, indicator or H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A apparatus is under the custody or control of the
consumer, whether it is his properly or not, it shall be
presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such
connection, reconnection, communication, alteration,
prevention or improper use, as the case may be, has
B been knowingly and wilfully caused by such consumer."

34. Clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126,
defines "unauthorized use of electricity" as the usage of
electricity by any artificial means; or by a means not authorized
by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or through a
C tampered meter; or for the purpose other than for which the
usage of electricity was authorized; or for the premises or areas
other than those for which the supply of electricity was
authorized.

D All the aforesaid acts constitute "offences" under Section
135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as noticed above.

35. From a bare reading of Section 126 and Sections 135
to 140, it is clear that while acts of "unauthorized use of
E electricity" attracts civil consequence of penal charge of
electricity, twice the rate of electricity, for which assessment is
made by assessing officer under Section 126; the very same
acts of "unauthorized use of electricity", constitute "offences"
under Section 135 to 140 for which sentence and fine has been
prescribed.
F
36. As per Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Special
Courts are to be constituted for speedy trial for the offences
referred to in Sections 135 to 140. The said Section reads as
follows:
G
"153. Constitution of Special Courts.· (1) The State
Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy
trial of offences. referred to in {sections 135 to 140 and
section 150], by notification in the Official Gazette,
constitute as many Special Courts as may be necessary
H
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 423
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
for such area or areas, as may be specified in the A
notification.

(2) A Special Court shall consist of a single Judge
who shall be appointed by the State Government with the
concurrence of the High Court. B

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment
as ajudge of a Special Court unless he was, immediately
before such appointment, an Additional District and
Sessions Judge.
,. c
(4) Where the office of the Judge of a Special Cowt
is vacant, or such Judge is absent from the ordinary place
of sitting of such Special Court, or he is incapacitated by
illness or otherwise for the performance of his duties, any
·urgent business in the Special Court shall be disposed D
of-·

(a) by a Judge, if any, exercising jurisdiction
in the ,Special Court;

(b) where there is no such other Judge E
available, in accordance with the direction
of District and Sessions Judge having
jurisdiction over the oridinary place of
.. sitting of Special Court, as notified under
sub-section (1 ). ": F

37. The Civil Court's jurisdiction to consider a suit with
respect to the decision of assessing officer under Section 126,
or decision of appellate authority under Section 127 is barred
under Section 145 of the Electricity Act,2003 , which reads as
under: · · · G

"145. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction.- No civil court
shall have jurisdiction to entertain any s,uit or proceeding
in respect of any matter which an assessing officer
referred ·to in Section 126 or an Appellate Authority H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A referred to in Section 127 or the adjudicating officer
appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this
Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by
any court or other authority in respect of any action taken
or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or
B under this Act."

38. The National Commission placed much reliance on
sub sections (5) and(6) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003
to derive power to adjudicate dispute arising out of Section ~
C 126, but it failed to notice that Section 42 of the Electricity Act,
2003 is not applicable in the case of licensee who is a trader
or supplier of electricity but it relates to "distribution licensees".

39. Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the
Appropriate Commission to. grant a licence to any person to
D "transmit electricity" or ''to distribute electricity" or "to undertake
trading in electricity", the relevant portion of Section 14 reads "'J,
as follows:

"14. Grant of licence.· The Appropriate
Commission may, on an application made to it under
E
Section 15, grant a licence to any person -

(a) to transmit electricity as a transmission
licensee; or

F (b) to distribute electricity as a distribution
licensee; or

(c) to undertake trading in electricity as an
electricity trader,
G in any area as may be specified in the licence."
40. Amongst the three categories of licensee(s)
viz. "transmission licensee"; "distribution licensee" and the
"licensee to undertake trading in electricity":the prqvisions with
H respect to "distribution licensees" have been provided under
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 425
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Part VI of the Electricity Act, 2003 but not the two other A
licensees. Bare perusal of Part VI and Section 42 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 makes it further clear. The same is quoted
hereunder:

"Part VI B
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY

Provisions with respect to distribution licensees
...->- -+-

42. Duties of distribution licensees and open access. c
-r ·(1) It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to
develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and
economical distribution system in his area of supply and
to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions
contained in this Act.
D
~
(2) The State Commission shall introduce open access
in such phases and subject to such conditions, {including
the cross subsidies, and other operational constraints) as
may be specified within one year of the appointed date
by it and in specifying the extent of open access in E
successive phases and in determining the charges for
wheeling, it shall have due regard to all relevant factors

- ;._ including such cross subsidies, and other operational
constraints:

Provided that [such open access shall be allowed on
F
payment of a surcharge] in addition to the charges for
wheeling as mayt (Je ..
·determined by the State
~

.
'lo

Commission: .' ' .. : ;
~
Provided further that such surcharge shall be utilised to G

• meet the requirements of current level of cross subsidy
within the area of supply of the distribution· licensee:

Provided also that such surcharge and cross subsidies
shall be progressively reduced [***] in the manner as H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

may be specified by the State Commission: ~
A
Provided also that such surcharge shall not be leviable
in case open access is provided to ·a person who has
established a captive generating plant for carrying the
electricity to the destination of his own use:
B
[Provided also that the State Commission shall, not later
than five years from the date of commencement of the
Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 (57 of 2003) by +---..-
regulations, provide such open access to all consumers
c who require a supply of electricity where the maximum ...,..._
power to be made available at any time exceeds one
megawatt.]

(3) Where any person, whose premises are situated within
D the area of supply of a distribution licensee, (not being a
local authority engaged in the business of distribution of -j..,
electricity before the appointed date) requires a supply
of electricity from a generating company or any licensee
other than such distribution licensee, such person may,
by notice, require the distribution licensee for wheeling
E
such electricity in accordance with regulations made by
the State Commission and the duties of the distribution

F
licensee with respect to such supply shall be of a
common carrier providing non-discriminatory open
access.

(4) Where the State Commission permits a consumer or
~
-
class of consumers to receive supply of electricity from
a person other than the distribution licensee of his area
of supply, such consumer shall be liable to pay an
,Ji..-:.._
additional surcharge on the charges of wheeling, as may

•
G
be specified by the State Commission, to meet the fixed
cost of such distribution licensee arising out of his
obligation to supply.

(5) Every distribution licensee shall, within six months
H
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 427
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, A
whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of
grievances of the consumers in accordance with the
guidelines as may be specified by the State
Commission.
B
(6) Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of
his grievances under sub-section (5), may make a
representation for the redressal of his grievance to an
authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed
or disignated by the State Commission. c
(7) The Ombudsman shall settle the grievance of the
consumer within such time and in such manner as may
be specified by the State Commission.
(8) The provisions of sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) shall D
be without prejudice to right which the consumer may
have apart from the rights conferred upon him by those
sub-sections. "
41. Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the
E
State Commission to specify an Electricity Supply Code ·to
provide for recovery of electricity charges, intervals for billing
of electricity charges, measures for preventing damage to
electrical plant or electrical line or meter, entry of distribution
licensee etc., and it reads as follows:
F
"50. The Electricity Supply Code.- The State
Commission shall specify an Electricity Supply Code to
provide for recovery of electricjty charges, intervals for
billing of electricity charges, disconnection of supply of
electricity for non-payment thereof, restoration of supply G
of electricity, measures for preventing tampering, distress
or damage to electrical plant or electrical line or meter,
entry of distribution licensee or any person acting on his
behalf for disconnecting supply and removing the meter,
entry for replacing, altering or maintaining electric lines H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.C.R.

A or electrical plants or meter and such other matters."

From reading Section 50, it is clear that under the
Electricity Supply Code provisions are to be made for recovery
of electricity charges, billing of electricity charges, disconnection
etc. and measures for preventing tampering, distress or
8
damage to the electrical plant or line or meter etc. But the said
code need not provide provisions relating to it do not relate to
assessment of charges for "unauthorized use of electricity"
under Section 126 or action to be taken against those
C committing 'offences' under Sections 135 to 140 of the
Electricity Act, 2003.

42. Limitation under Section 173, 174 and 175 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is only qua the scope of Consumer
Protection Act, which read as under:
D
" 173. Inconsistency in laws.- 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 insofar as it is inconsistent
with any other provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,
E
1986 (68 of 1986) or the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of
1962) or the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)."

174. Act to have overriding effect. - Save as otherwise
provided in section 173, the provisions of this Act shall
F have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being in
force. or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any
law other than this Act.

G 175. Provisions of this Act to be in addition to and not
in derogation of other laws. - The provisions of this Act
are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law
for the time being in force."

43. The inconsistency would arise only if the provisions of
H the Electricity Act, 2003 run counter to the provisions of the
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS:AHMED 429
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.] ,/
Consumer Protectiori'Act; 1986 or if while enforcing provision A
on one statute; provisions of other statute is violated. We find
that the entire object and reasons of Consumer Protection Act
is.not crossed over by the Electricity Act,·2003 and whenever I
'such situation arise the Electricity Act, 2003 has left ttie option I

'open for the cons·umer to' take recourse under other Laws·.· · . B
.. · ;~~_·!·-'~-<~~~;·Jr:··'"',; :'" -. . .·- ......... _,_ .
,.. · , :.44.- ·The National Commission. by its majority decision
dated 10th April, 2008 referring to Section 3 of_the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 and Sections 173, 174 and 175 of the
'Electricity Act; 2003 held as follows: . '''
.- ,--.. ~: - ' .. :., :: . ,
' -"
c
"A bare reading of.the aforesaid Sections makes it
· abundantly clear that -:-
~-"· ·~- ,... ' ,. "'" . -~ ·, ·.. ''-.~- _-
(i) . The intention of the Parliament.is not to bar the
,:.:'·, ;:;)Uriifdiction ofUfe consumer fora underthe CPAct. o
1
• The.Electricity Act also impliedly does not bar the
...· . .. ·. ju~~dictio~ ofthe c_,onsumer fora;
.." (ii) . on~ ihe· contrary, it saves the: provisions of
1
' - · Consumer Protectioh Act/1986; Atomic"Energy E
. , Act, .1962 and the· Railways Act,. 1989;

. . (iii) ; By non-obstante clause,· it has been provided that
n! .J• ·~if anything .in the· Electricity •Act,. Rules or
·. Regulations is inconsistent with any provisions of
,,. . .- .t\ the' Consumer Protection Act, it. shall have no F
effect;.and•·>· · ·· _.. , · A''

(iv) • Provisions of the· Electricity Act are in addition to
and not in derogation of any other law for the time
· • · - being in f6rce. The act supplements the existing . G
ill ' redressa/
'1 S'.' ,_ '.:'. •. , '
forum,
namely, the Consumer Fora."
.-~ · .: '.1 ·-· , -.~. ,· ,

' 45. The National Commission though held that the intention
of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer
Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and have saved the
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, failed to notice that H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS, .. (2013] 13 S.C.R.
1
A by virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act; 1986 or
Sections 173,174 and 175 of.the Electricity Act, 2003, the
Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute
·in relation to assessment made under Section.126 or offences
,under Sections 135 to.140 of the Electricity Act, as the acts of
• B indulging in "unauthorized. use of electricity'' as defined under
Section 126 or committing offence under Sections 135 to 140
·do not fall within the meaning of "complaint" as defined under
Section 2(1 )(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. , -
, .. ,
•
·-
..,._. J
. -..... ..
-
:C 46. The acts of indulgence in ."unauthorized use of
electricity" by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the
'Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003
neither has any relationship with"'unfair trade· practice" or
; "restrictive trade practice" or "deficiency in service" nor does
it amounts to hazardous services by the licensee. Such acts of
D "unauthorized use of electricity" has nothing to do with charging I

price in excess of the price. Therefore, acts of person in '
indulging in 'unauthorized use of electricity','do not fall within the
meaning of '.'co!llplaint", as we have noticed above and,
therefore, the "complaint" against assessment under Section
E · 126 is not 'maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The
Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to
· in Sections 135 to 140 can be' tried only by a Special Court
·constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In
that view of the matter also the complaint against any action
· F taken under Sections 135 to 140 of.the Electricity Act, 2003 is
not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. · .
(

47. In view of the observation made above, we hold that:
·' . ·, •· \· ' '
I
G
(i) In case of inconsistency· between the Electricity Act,
2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the t
provisions of ConsufTier 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 under
H ...
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. ANIS AHMED 431
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
--it'·
Section 2(1)(o) or "complaint"as defined under Section A
2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(ii) A "complaint" against the assessment made by
assessing officer under Section 126 or against the
offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the B
Electricity
,
Act, 2003
-, . is not maintainable before a

-
Consumer Forum.

).
(iii) The Electricity Act; 2003 and the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person,
who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section c
2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the
Central ·Government or the State Government or
association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute
relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade
practice adopted by the service provider"; or "if the D
consumer suffers from deficiency in service"; or "hazardous
service"; or "the service provider has charged a price in
excess of the price fixed by or under any law".

48. For the reasons as mentioned above, we have no
E
hesitation in setting aside the orders passed by the National
Commission. They are accordingly set aside. All the appeals
filed by the service provider-licensee are allowed, however, no
).. order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals allowed. F