Case title:
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation v/s. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited
Date of Order:
09th February, 2009
Bench:
Justice Markandey Katju and Justice R.M. Lodha
Parties:
Petitioner: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
Defendant: Ashok Iron Works Private Limited
Facts:
- According to the main contention, Ashok Iron Works Private Limited is a private limited company that was founded in 1981 and engages in the production of iron goods. It runs in the Karnataka state.
- The corporation submitted an application to the Karnataka Power Transmission Company for the provision of electrical energy (2500 KVA) (KPTC). The business was given permission to use 1500 KVA of electrical energy, for which it deposited Rs. 8, 40,000 on demand on February 1st, 1991. The corporation petitioned the Karnataka High Court to order KPTC to provide the approved electricity after KPTC failed to do so.
- On April 16, 1992, the High Court issued its ruling and ordered KPTC to immediately supply electrical energy in accordance with the sanction. The High Court then extended the deadline for the supply of electricity to July 21, 1992.
- KPTC wanted an extra amount of Rs. 8,38,000/- and another demand for Rs. 1,34,000/-, which the company claimed to have paid. In November 1992, the power was actually started to flow.
- In response, the company complained to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Belgaum under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, demanding damages of Rs. 99,900 for the delay in the supply of energy.
- KPTC refuted the complaint and, among other things, raised a preliminary objection that the complaint could not be upheld because the complainant was engaged in commercial activity and electricity was a good, and since the sale of goods to a commercial consumer for a commercial purpose was not covered by the Act of 1986. The complaint was not maintainable, according to the ruling, which favoured KPTC.
- Before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the corporation filed a second appeal. This time, the corporation benefited from the decision. According to the state commission, complaints could be maintained in accordance with how "Customer" is defined under the Act of 1986.
- KPTC appealed the State Commission's decision by submitting a revision petition to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal, which was subsequently denied.
- Next, the appellants filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. There is a claim that-According to the Act's Section 2(1)(m), Ashok Iron Works was not a person.
- A consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act was not Ashok Iron Works.
- A dispute involving the purchase or supply of energy does not fall under the Act's definition of service under Section 2(1)(o).
- The court's earlier ruling in Southern Petrochemical Industries Co Ltd v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO served as a guide in coming to this determination.
Issues Raised:
- Can a private firm that purchases a service for business purposes be considered a consumer?
- Does the consumer dispute redressal venues established under the legislation receive complaints regarding service delays or deficiencies.
- Whether the private firm qualifies as a person for purposes of the Act's sections 2(1)(d) and (m)?
- Does disputes involving the sale and supply of energy fall under section 2 (1)(o) services?
Arguments:
- Ashok Iron Works Private Limited prevailed in its legal battle with Karnataka Electricity Transmission Company, according to the ruling. The financial claim filed by the Company for KPTC's delayed electricity delivery was supported by a ruling based on the judges' subsequent interpretations of the words "consumer" and "fault in service."
- The corporation purchased electrical energy from the KPTC for commercial production rather than for personal use, but is nonetheless regarded as a consumer under the definition of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, 1986.
- The definition of "person" under Section 2(1) includes the following four categories, but the definition of "consumer" solely refers to "person" (m)- a business, whether or not it is registered; a Hindu unbroken family; a cooperative society; and every other group of people, whether or not they are officially recognised.
- Yet, the word "include" is frequently used in interpretation clauses to broaden the meaning of words or phrases that appear in the statute's body. This clause is used to treat the business as a consumer.
- As a result of the ruling, private corporations are now considered "persons," and the Act now classifies energy delivery as a service. Then, for this form of service, complaints about faults can be referred to as a customer redress forum. But it's also important to consider how the act's provision will affect upcoming judicial rulings.
Analysis:
- The Supreme Court found that if the supply of electricity were not given in a timely manner, this would constitute a service deficiency after determining that Ashok Iron Works was covered by the definition of "a person" and that the provision of electricity is in fact a service.
- Although the period under consideration was before the modification, the court decided to disregard the phrase "but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose," which was added to the legislation. In addition, the court determined that Ashok Iron Works' complaint to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was legitimate.
- As a result of the ruling, private corporations are now considered "persons," and the Act now classifies energy delivery as a service. Then, for this form of service, complaints about faults can be referred to as a customer redress forum. But it's also important to consider how the act's provision will affect upcoming judicial rulings.
Conclusion:
As a result of the ruling, private corporations are now considered "persons" for purposes of the statute, and the provision of energy is considered a service. Hence, complaints about flaws in that service can be made to a consumer complaint forum. However, it is still to be seen how the act's change would impact subsequent judicial rulings
