1. This group of petitions involve and raise common issue and grievance. All petitions are filed by the licensee companies under the provisions of Electricity Supply Act, 2003. The petitioner licensee is supplying electricity to various consumers including Industrial and High Tension Consumers.
2. In the group of above mentioned petitions the petitioner licensee company is aggrieved by the orders passed by Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Forum, for short) or the State Commission constituted under the provisions of Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Consumer Act).
3. The petitioner companies have preferred present petitions, contending, inter alia, that the learned District Consumer Forum and the learned State Commission do not have jurisdiction to entertain complaint/s filed by the petitioners/consumers under the provisions of the Consumer Act against the action taken by the petitioner licensee company under Section 124 read with Section 125 and 126 of Electricity Act and/or under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
4. Though, some of the relevant facts in each petition are different, however since the central issue and dispute raised by the petitioners in all petitions is common viz. orders passed by learned District Forum and learned State Commission against action of the electricity companies under Section 124 read with Sections 125 and 126 of the Electricity Act or against the action taken under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and since learned counsel for the contesting parties have made common submission for all petitions, they were heard together at the request of and with consent of learned advocates for the contesting parties and they all are decided by this common order.
5. In the petitions wherein the petitioners electricity companies have challenged orders passed by District Forum as well as the State Commission the relief prayed for in the petitions are almost similar. Therefore, relief prayed for in one of the petitions is quoted below:-
“(B) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the Learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.1371 of 2006 and further be pleased to allow the said Appeal and thereby set aside the order dated 27.02.2006 passed by the CDRF, Jamnagar in Complaint No.331 of 2005 with costs althroughout.”
6. So far as the relevant facts are concerned, the petitioner electricity company in SCA No.15114 of 2011 has stated, inter alia, that the respondent no.1 of said SCA No.15114 of 2011 is consumer whose meter was replaced on 15.04.2005 and the premises were inspected on 10.05.2005, 17.05.2005, 24.05.2005 and 01.06.2005. The meter which was removed during one of the visits was tested in laboratory. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.1 was committing theft of electricity and therefore supplementary bill on ground of theft of electricity was issued on 30.07.2005 for a sum of Rs.56,748/-. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed Consumer Complaint No.331 of 2005 before the learned District Forum, Jamnagar. The learned District Forum, vide order dated 27.02.2006, quashed the bill and directed the petitioner to refund the amount with interest. Against the said order by District Forum the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned State Commission. The learned State Commission dismissed the appeal vide order dated
6.1. So far as SCA No.10335 is concerned, the petitioner company has stated that respondent No.2, one of its consumers, has been granted agricultural connection and his consumption is charged by applying tariff applicable to agricultural connection. The petitioner has claimed that the installation was checked on 16.09.2006. The team found some irregularity in connection. Therefore, on suspicion the meter was replaced and the meter which was removed was sent for laboratory test. The said meter was tested in laboratory on 17.10.2006. According to the laboratory test report the meter was tampered with and theft of electricity was being committed. Therefore, supplementary bill was raised in exercise powers under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for Rs.1,15,107/-. The respondent was also asked to pay compounding charges of Rs.1 lac. The respondent paid the compounding charges and therefore criminal proceedings were compounded under Section 152 of the Electricity Act. Subsequently, the respondent demanded refund of compounded charges and he also filed consumer complaint No.151 of 2006 before the learned District Forum at Gandhinagar. The said complaint was partly allowed by the learned District Forum. The petitioner company preferred writ petition being S.C.A.No.7512 of 2009 which was disposed by the Court directing the petitioner to approach alternative remedy. Therefore, petitioner filed appeal before the learned State Commission. In view of the delay caused in filing the appeal, application to condone delay was filed by the petitioner. The learned Commission declined to entertain the appeal vide order dated 24.02.2010 refusing to condone delay and also holding that the respondent consumer had not committed theft of electricity. Aggrieved by the said orders by the learned District Forum and the learned Commission the petitioner company has preferred the said petition.
6.2. So far as SCA No.15251 of 2010 is concerned, the petitioner has stated, inter alia, that on 16.02.2006 the petitioner company noticed that the respondent consumer was committing theft of electricity by drawing electricity directly from the pole. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 135 of the Act, the petitioner raised bill against the respondent alleging theft of electricity and claimed a sum of Rs.1,91,720/- and also filed, on 23.02.2006, FIR against the respondent. The respondent consumer, thereafter, filed complaint before the learned District Forum at Bharuch. The learned District Forum passed interim order in the said complaint filed by respondent consumer which was challenged by the petitioner company by preferring Revision Application No.42 of 2008 before learned State Commission. Learned Commission set aside the interim order passed by the District Forum. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.02.2010, the learned District Forum at Bharuch allowed the complaint. The petitioner company preferred appeal before learned Commission against the order passed by District Forum. The appeal was registered as Appeal No.456 of 2010, which came to be disposed of by the learned Commission vide order dated 21.07.2010 holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in view of the decision in S.C.A.No.8264 of 2009. Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum and learned State Commission the petitioner company has preferred the said petition.
6.3. So far as S.C.A.No.8077 of 2012 is concerned, the petitioner company has stated that the installation of the respondent consumer was inspected in November 2008 and the meter was replaced and was sent to Laboratory for testing. During laboratory test it was found that the instrument was tampered. The petitioner issued bill in exercise of powers under Section 126 of the Act and demanded a sum of Rs.1,64,068.43 under bill dated 15.04.2009 raised for alleged theft of electricity. Thereafter, the respondent consumer filed complaint before learned District Forum at Jamnagar who registered the complaint as complaint No.125 of 2009 and vide order dated 05.06.2010 allowed the complaint by setting aside the bill and directing the petitioner to refund the amount recovered against the said bill. Aggrieved by the said order of District Forum, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Commission which was registered as Appeal No.387 of 2011. Since the appeal was filed after prescribed period of limitation, application seeking condonation of delay was also filed. The learned Commission rejected the application seeking condonation of delay vide its order dated 01.08.2011. Consequently the appeal also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said orders by the learned District Forum and learned Commission the petitioner has preferred the aforesaid petition.
6.4. So far as SCA No.16690 of 2011 is concerned, the petitioner has alleged that the installation of respondent consumer was checked in October 2002 and January 2004 when it was found that the respondent consumer was committing theft of electricity. Therefore, the petitioner company raised bills for a sum of Rs.1,73,694.38 and Rs.1,27,609.76 respectively. Aggrieved by the said bills, the respondent consumer preferred appeal before the petitioner company’s Appellate Committee. The respondent consumer also deposited 50% amount out of the amount claimed by the supplementary bill. Subsequently the respondent registered as Complaint No.206 of 2004. The petitioner has claimed that the learned District Forum set aside the supplementary bills raised by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum the petitioner belatedly preferred appeal before the learned Commission. In view of delay in filing appeal, application seeking condonation of delay was also filed. The learned Commission dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently the appeal also came to be
and order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the learned Commission, the petitioner has preferred the said petition.
6.5. So far as S.C.A.No.6944 of 2012 is concerned, the petitioner has alleged that the installation of the respondent consumer was visited on 17.02.2012 and it was found that the respondent was committing unauthorized use of electricity by extension of load. It was also found that the metal seal on the meter box was in suspicious condition. Therefore the meter was removed and was sent for laboratory test. According to the test report the respondent was committing theft of electricity. In that view of the matter supplementary bill for a sum of Rs.10,404.78 was raised. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent consumer filed complaint before the learned District Forum at Bhuj. The complaint was registered as compliant No.27 of 2000 and vide order dated 16.04.2002, the learned Forum partly allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.04.2002 passed by the Forum the petitioner company preferred appeal before the learned Commission which was registered as Appeal No.178 of 2009. Subsequently, by order dated 08.12.2010 the learned Commission dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the orders dated 16.04.2002 passed by the learned Forum and order dated 08.12.2010 passed by the learned Commission the petitioner company has preferred the said petition.
7. Mr. D.R.Dave and Ms. Bhaya, learned advocates have appeared for the petitioner companies and Mr. Saiyed and Mr. Chaudhary, learned advocates have appeared for the respondent consumer in SCA No.15251 of 2010, whereas Mr. Premal S. Rachh, learned advocate has appeared for respondent consumer in S.C.A.No. 15114 of 2011, Mr.S.P.Majmudar and Mr. P.P.Majmudar, learned advocates have appeared for respondent consumer in Special Civil Application No.16690 of 2011 and Mr. R.J.Goswami, learned advocate has appeared for respondent consumer in S.C.A.No.10335 of 2011.
7.1. Learned advocates for the petitioners companies have submitted, inter alia, that the orders passed by the District Forum and the learned State Commission are without jurisdiction. It is submitted that any proceedings against the action taken under and/or the bills raised on ground of unauthorized use and/or for alleged theft of electricity, are not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Act and the learned Forum or the learned Commission constituted under the provisions of the Act do not have any jurisdiction to entertain applications raising such disputes. Therefore, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and deserve to be set aside. As a supplementary submission it is also submitted that even otherwise the decisions and conclusions holding, inter alia, that the respondent consumers are not guilty of unauthorized use or theft of electricity, are incorrect and contrary to evidence on record. So as to support the contention that the learned Forum and learned Commission do not have any jurisdiction to entertain such complaint and dispute the learned advocates for the petitioner companies have relied on the decision in case between Manoramaben Kansara widow of Balkrishna Kansara v. Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. [2011 (2) GLH 563] and in case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. V. District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bhuj [2011 (3) GLR 2286]. The learned counsel for respondents have opposed the petitions and contended that in view of the statutory remedy available under the provisions of the Consumer
8. In view of the above mentioned facts and the submissions by learned advocates for petitioners companies and in view of the provisions contained under Section 19 and Section 21 of the Consumer Act, the question which is required to be addressed at the outset is that since statutory remedy of appeal before National Consumer Forum against the orders passed by the learned State Commission is available to the petitioner companies, whether present petitions are maintainable and whether present petitions should be entertained or the petitioner companies should be relegated to the statutory remedy.
8.1. In this context it is necessary and pertinent to mention at the outset that as the above mentioned facts and details reveal, the petitioners companies had approached the learned State Commission by filing appeals against the decisions/orders passed by the learned District Forum and after invoking the statutory remedy of appeal before the learned Commission against the orders passed by the learned District Forum, now the petitioners do not want to invoke the further statutory remedy available under the Act and instead of preferring regular statutory appeal before the learned National Commission against the decision by the learned State Commission the petitioners have preferred present petitions
9. So as to consider the aforesaid aspect it is relevant to take into account the provisions contained under Section 15, 17 and Section 19 of the Consumer Act as well as the provisions under Section 21 of the Consumer Act. The said provisions read thus:
“15. Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed;
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
[Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent, of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less.]”
17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission.- [1] Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed [exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore]; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
[(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.] 19. Appeals.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (I) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that the national Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
[Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less.]
21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction.-
(a) to entertain.-
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds [rupees one crore]; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”
9.1. Section 15 of the Act provides, inter alia, remedy of appeal before the State Commission against order passed by District Forum and Section 19 of the Act provides, inter alia, statutory remedy of appeal before the learned National Commission against an order passed by State Commission in exercise of powers conferred by sub clause 1 of clause (a) of Section 17 of the Act.
9.2. It can be seen from plain reading of Section 17 of the Act that under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-Section 1 of Section 17 the State Commission can entertain and decide an appeal against an order by District Forum and according to Section 19, against learned State Commission's order, appeal lies before the learned National Commission. Thus, in present case, the petitioners have statutory remedy available under the provisions of the Act in view of which the petitioner companies can prefer appeal before the National Commission.
9.3. As noticed above, by preferring appeals under Section 15 before the State Commission against the order by District Forum, the petitioner companies have already taken recourse under the provisions of the Act by filing appeal as provided by the Act.
9.4. However, now, instead of filing appeal before the National Commission the petitioner companies have preferred this group of writ petitions on the ground that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints against the supplementary bills. The remedy under Section 19 of the Act being statutory Appeal, the said objections – contentions also can be raised before learned National Commission as well.
9.5. The learned counsel for petitioner companies have relied on the decision in case between Manoramaben Kansara widow of Balkrishna Kansara (supra) so as to contend that the District Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain complaint against supplementary bills. In the said decision the Court has held, inter alia, that:
“36. The term “deficiency” is defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as follows :-
“2(1)(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in 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 a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”
37. In the present case, we find that there is no allegation relating to any deficiency on the part of the Electricity Companies alleged by one or other complainants. There is nothing on record to suggest that any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which was required to be maintained by or under any law or has been undertaken to be performed by the Electricity Company to allege deficiency.
38. The complainants moved against the bill raised under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which relates to indulging in unauthorized use of electricity or against the measures under Section 135, which constituted an offence for which penalties are prescribed. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Companies.
Therefore, even if it is accepted that in the case of deficiency in service by the Electricity Companies in supply of electricity, the person can file a complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but in absence of any such allegation, no such petition is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In a case where the bill is raised alleging indulgence in unauthorizes use of electricity by a person under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the measures or the penal action taken for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in absence of any provision made under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain any complaint or any such action, we hold that the petitions preferred by the consumer – appellants were not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
40. In the case of Jharkhand State Electricity Board vs Anwar Ali, reported in II (2008) CPJ 284 (NC), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has noticed, as observed above, that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to deal with the grievances of the consumer is only in case of deficiency in service by electricity supplier.
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarize our findings as follows :-
(a) The finding of the learned Single Judge that there is a third forum of appeal under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in this type of cases under Section 126 or Section 135, is incorrect and does not lay down a correct law.
(b) The jurisdiction of the Consumer Court in the matter of deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Company is not ousted in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The finding of the learned Single Judge to that extent in general that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints in respect of the matter pertaining to supply of electricity against the Electricity Company is incorrect and does not lay down a correct law.
(c) In a case where the bill is raised alleging indulgence in unauthorizes use of electricity by a person under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the measures or the penal action taken for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in absence of any provision made under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain any complaint or any such action, the petitions preferred by the consumer are not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
42. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission have erred in coming to the conclusion that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction to try cases against assessment made under Section 126 or theft of energy under Section 135 and the learned Single Judge rightly interfered with those orders and set aside the orders. For the reason aforesaid, no interference is called for against the impugned common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. In absence of any merit, the appeals and the Civil Applications are dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.”
10. It can be seen that the Court has held that the jurisdiction of Consumer Court in the matter of deficiency in service is not ousted in view of the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and that to claim that the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain complaints in respect of matters pertaining to supply of electricity, is not correct position of law emerging from the provisions of Consumer Act and Electricity Act, 2003. The Court has, however, held, with regard to the bills raised on the allegation of unauthorized use of electricity or on allegation of theft of electricity i.e. under Section 126 and Section 135 of Electricity Act that a complaint against such bills before the Consumer Forum would not be maintainable.
10.1. In view of the said decision by the Court it would become necessary for the Forum to initially and prima facie examine the complaints to ascertain as to whether the complaint is filed exclusively and solely against the bill raised on allegation of unauthorized use of electricity or theft of electricity and/or whether the complaint also makes grievance against deficiency in service by the electricity company. If the District Forum, upon proper examination of the complaint, comes to the conclusion that the Consumer’s complaint is exclusively and solely against bills raised under Section 126 or Section 135 then it would lack jurisdiction to entertain such complaint. Otherwise, in view of the decision of the Court in paragraph 41(b), the complaint would be maintainable before the District Forum. In view of the provisions under Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21 of the Consumer Act order passed by the learned District Forum would be appelable before the learned State Commission and order passed by the learned State Commission would be appelable before the learned National Commission.
10.2. As mentioned above, instead of availing statutory remedy of appeal before learned National Commission against the order passed by the learned State Commission by which the petitioner companies feel aggrieved the petitioner companies have preferred present group of petitions.
11. In this context, it is relevant, appropriate and necessary to refer to decision dated 9th July 2010 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case between Advance Scientific Equipment Ltd. V. West Bengal Pharma Photochemical D.E.V. & A.N. wherein the Consumer Dispute Forum passed order against the petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the said petitioner, after some delay, preferred appeal before the State Commission who overruled the said petitioner’s contention. Aggrieved by the said decision of State Commission, the said petitioner preferred a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, in the High Court. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before learned National Commission who declined to entertain the appeal by petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court observed, inter alia, that:
“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length and are convinced that the National Commission did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the petitioners’ prayer for condonation of delay because the explanation given by the petitioners for not filing with appeal within the prescribed period of limitation was wholly unsatisfactory.
We are further of the view that the petitioners’ venture of filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was clearly an abuse of process of the Court and the High Court ought not to have entertained the petitioner even for a single day because an effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act and the orders passed by the State Commission did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied)
11.1. In view of the fact that statutory remedy of appeal before the learned National Commission is available and in view of the fact that these very petitioner companies had taken recourse under the statutory remedy of filing appeal/s before learned State Commission against the order passed by the District Forum but now instead of preferring appeal before the learned National Commission the petitioner companies have preferred present group of petitions, it is necessary to examine the issue about maintainability of present petition in light of the above quoted observations and direction by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
12. It is pertinent that in the said case the petitioners’ action of preferring writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the State Commission (as has been done by the petitioner companies in present case) has been considered and described by the Hon’ble Apex Court as “the petitioners’ venture of filing petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court…..”
13. After holding that such action of preferring a writ petition instead of preferring appeal as prescribed under the Act would amount to abuse of process of court, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also put a word of caution and observed that:
“the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition even for a single day because an effective alternative remedy was available ”
14. It is true that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held (see Whirlpool Corporation v Registered Trademark, Mumbai 1998 (8) SCC Page 1) that in the cases where the proceedings/order are wholly without jurisdiction and the authority inherently lacks jurisdiction then writ petition may be entertained by the Court instead of relegating the party to the statutory remedy. However, there is world of difference between the authority inherently lacking jurisdiction and the proceedings/order being wholly without jurisdiction and irregular or arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction by the authority.
15. So far as the petitioner’s objection is concerned, as mentioned hereinabove earlier, the Division Bench of this Court has also held that in certain cases i.e. in case of certain complaints jurisdiction of the Forum/State Commission is not ousted by provisions of Electricity Act, 2003.
16. Therefore it would become necessary for the Forum and the State Commission to examine each case in light of the observations and decision by the Court in paragraph No.41(b) and 41(c) of the judgment in case between Manoramaben Kansara widow of Balkrishna Kansara (supra) and to that extent it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is completely ousted and the proceedings and the order lack inherent jurisdiction.
17. In present cases the District Forum and the State Commission have passed impugned orders after examining the complaints filed by the respondents- consumers and now the petitioner companies contend that since the complaints were preferred against the supplementary bills raised under Section 126 or 135, the District Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The District Forum reached the conclusion that complaints also related to deficiency in service.
18. In this view of the matter and in light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances and the decision by this Court in case of Manoramaben Kansara (supra) and more particularly in light of the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case between Advance Scientific Equipment Ltd. (supra), and in light of the observation by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
“We are further of the view that the petitioners’ venture of filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was clearly an abuse of process of the Court and the High Court ought not to have entertained the petitioner even for a single day because an effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act and the orders passed by the State Commission did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied) this Court is not inclined to entertain present petitions and the Court would, instead, relegate the petitioner companies to the statutory remedy for preferring appeal before the learned National Forum because effective and efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioner companies and the objections sought to be raised in the petitions can be raised before the learned National Commission as well.
19. Therefore, present petitions are not entertained only on the aforesaid ground viz. in view of the statutory remedy of appeal and the petitioners are relegated to the said statutory remedy. The petitions, accordingly, stand disposed of.
jani (K.M.THAKER, J.)