Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation v Ashok Iron Works Private Limited [III (2009) CPJ 5 SC] Date of Decision: 09.02.2009 The appellant corporation contended that the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable as (i) a company is not a person under section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA); (ii) the complainant is not a consumer within section 2(1)(d) of the said Act since it purchased electricity for commercial production; and (iii) disputes relating to sale and supply of electricity were not covered under service under section 2(1)(o) of the CPA. The Apex Court rejected the appellants contention that a company was excluded from the definition of person. In this, the Court relied upon the English Court decision in Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps [(1899) AC 99] and its own in Reserve Bank of India v Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited. & Others [(1987) 1 SCC 424] and reiterated that the use of the word includes in a statute often showed the intention of the Legislature to give an extensive and enlarged meaning to such expressions though sometimes, the context might suggest that includes was designed to mean means. The setting, context and object of an enactment might provide sufficient guidance for interpretation. The Court also referred to section 3(42) of General Clauses Act which defines a person to include a company, etc., and went on to observe that out of the four categories mentioned in section 2(1)(m) of the CPA, the third i.e., co-operative society was corporate, which showed that the Legislature intended to include bodies corporate as well as incorporate. Thus, the definition of person was inclusive and not exhaustive. When so construed, any person mentioned in the definition of consumer in section 2(1)(d) would include a company. On the appellants second contention, the Court held that the amendment to the CPA effective from 15 March 2003, excluding services availed of for commercial purposes, was not applicable to this case since the controversy related to a prior period. In respect of the appellants third contention, the Court held that supply of electricity by the corporation to a consumer was not sale of goods within section 2(1)(d) of the CPA. For this, the Court relied upon its decision in Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO & Others [(2007) 5 SCC 447], in which the Court had held that supply of electricity did not mean sale thereof and a case of supply of electricity was covered under section 2(1)(d)(ii) (i.e., hiring or availing of any service) as service under section 2(1)(o) meant service of any description including the provision of facilities in connection with supply of electrical or other energy. Therefore, a case of deficiency in service would fall under section 2(1)(g). The Court rejected the appellants contention that service in section 2(1)(o) was limited to providing facilities in connection with electricity.
Posted on: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:09:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015