Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Consumer Disputes Redressal ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3711 Bom

                                               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

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

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