HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Is the consumer beneficial jurisdiction extendable to assessment and quantification of duty (including penalty) under the Electricity Act, 2003, is the question which arose before the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(3.) With the industrial revolution and development in the international trade and commerce, there has been a substantial increase of business and trade, which resulted in a variety of consumer goods appearing in the market to cater to the needs of the consumers. With globalization and with free market economy the possibility of deficiency in the services rendered warranted enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended from time to time. This law has been enacted for the welfare of consumers and to protect them from their exploitation for which the said 1986 Act has made provisions for the establishment of Commissions for settlement of consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. In the case of Skypak Couriers Ltd. etc. vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. etc., (2000) 5 SCC 294 this court has held that "the Commissions, under the Act, are quasi-judicial bodies to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for that purpose, they have been empowered to give relief of a specified nature and in an appropriate way, to award compensation." (Emphasis supplied by us)