advocatemmmohan
electricity act
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 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.= (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 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. (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 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 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 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 hesitation in setting aside the orders passed by the National Commission. They are accordingly set aside.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40487 Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5466 OF 2012 (arising out of SLP(C)No.35906 of 2011) U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. … APPELLANTS Versus ANIS AHMAD … RESPONDENT With C.A.No. 54675468 of 2012 (@ SLP(C) No. 1828418285 of 2008) C.A.No. 5469 of 2012 (@ SLP(C) No.14306 of 2009) C.A.No. 5470 of 2012 (@ SLP(C) No.33557 of 2011) C.A.No. 5471 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33558 of 2011) C.A.No. 5472 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33559 of 2011) C.A.No. 5473 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33560 of 2011) C.A.No. 5474 of 2012( @ SLP(C) No.33561 of 2011) C.A.No. 5475 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33562 of 2011) J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. The 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 … Continue reading
the appellant was not liable to reimburse supervision charges stipulated under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, does not lie in the appellant’s mouth. This is so, because the appellant has unilaterally accepted to pay supervision charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005. The aforesaid Electricity Supply Code, 2005 became enforceable w.e.f. 18.2.2005. All the pleas raised by the appellant, to avoid payment of supervision charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002, are also available to the appellant to avoid payment of such charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005. If the appellant has accepted the 20 enforceability of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 over and above the office memorandum dated 17.1.1984, it is not possible for us to understand why the appellant has failed to accede to abide by supervision charges levied under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002. For exactly the same reasons, for which the appellant has accepted the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, it is liable to accept the levy of supervision charges under the Electricity Supply Code, 2002.
1 “REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4209 OF 2007 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad …. Appellant Versus U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. …. Respondent J U D G M E N T JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The appellant herein, the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 