1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 3128 of 2014
Petitioner : Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Limited, through its Executive
Engineer (Rural Division), Akola
igversus
Respondents : 1) Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amravati Zone, Akola, Vidyut Bhavan, Ratanlal Plots, Akola
2) Sanjay Jagdeo Jadhav, aged Major, Occ: Private, resident of Shelu (Naik), Banode, Tahsil Murtizapur, District Akola Shri S. V. Purohit, Advocate for petitioner Respondent No. 1 served Ms Deepali Sapkal, Advocate h/f Shri A. S. Kilor, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Coram : Z. A. Haq, J Dated : 11th July 2016 ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:56:56 ::: 2 Oral Judgment
1. Heard Shri S. V. Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms Deepali Sapkal, Advocate h/f Shri A. S. Kilor, Advocate for respondent no.2.
None appears for respondent no. 1 though served.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 had directly filed complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum without approaching the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell as required by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsmen) Regulations, 2006 (for short "Regulations of 2006"). This plea was raised before the Forum and the Forum has held that the complaint made by the respondent no. 2 can be entertained though he has not approached the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell.
The conclusions of the Forum are not in consonance with the provisions of Clauses 6.2 to 6.7 of the Regulations of 2006. This Court has held in the judgment given in the case of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & ors reported in 2012 (3) ALL MR 839 and in the judgment given in Writ Petition No. 3023 of 2014 on 21 st November, 2014 that the consumer cannot directly approach the Forum unless he approaches the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell or unless he explains as to why he has not approached the ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:56:56 ::: 3 Internal Grievance Redressal Cell.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the respondent no. 1 approached the Forum directly without making grievance to the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell and the respondent no. 2 has not explained as to why he had not approached the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell. The failure on the part of the Forum to consider these aspects vitiates the order passed by it. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 is dismissed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
Z. A. HAQ, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:56:56 :::