Madras High Court
Dr.V.Murugan vs The Chairman on 20 March, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:777
W.P.No.1126 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.1126 of 2024
Dr.V.Murugan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Chairman, T.N.E.B.,
Mount Road
Chennai 600 002
2. The Executive Engineer (O & M)
T.N.E.B. Porur
Chennai 600 116
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer
T.N.E.B., Thirumudivakkam
Chennai 600 132
4. The Assistant Engineer
T.N.E.B., Thirumudivakkam
Chennai 600 132 .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
connected with the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
W.P.No.1126 of 2024
Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.1841 of 2023
dated 23.08.2023 and to quash the same, consequently direct the
respondents to pay compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees four lakhs
twenty thousand only) towards the loss of crops for the above said three
periods of each crop of Rs.1,40,000/- (One lakh forty thousand only), pay a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for mental agony and
tension for dragging the matter to the Hon'ble National Commission and to
pay further Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation fees.
For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Sairam for
Mr.L.J.Krishnamurthy
For Respondents :: Ms.Sindhuza.M.S for
Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh
Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the order passed by
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in
Revision Petition No.1841 of 2023.
2. The writ petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpet in C.C.No.81 of 2015 against the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for the alleged deficiency in service
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
committed by the Board. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
adjudicated the issues elaborately and passed an order, which reads as
follows:-
“In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite
parties 3 & 4 are hereby directed to reconnect the service
connection of the complainant within one month of time from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order, provided the
complainant herein ready with the meter board, main switch, fuse
carrier and other accessories. For the deficiency of service
committed by the opposite parties 3 & 4 which resulted in mental
agony, sufferings and causing loss to the present complainant,
they have to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) as compensation along with Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand only) towards the cost of this proceedings to the
complainant. The total amount (10000+3000) of Rs.13,000/-
(Rupees Thirteen Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant
by the opposite parties 3 & 4.
The above amounts shall be payable within two months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Failing which,
the entire amount (Total amount of Rs.13,000/-) shall carry
interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of this order till the realization
of the amounts.”
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
3. The writ petitioner preferred first appeal in F.A.No.351 of 2017
before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and
the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Consumer Forum,
as under:-
“10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by modifying
the order of the District Commission, Chengalpattu, in
C.C.No.81/2015 dt. 20.9.2017, the compensation awarded @
Rs.10,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.25,000/-and the rest of
the order is hereby confirmed. There is no order as to cost in
this appeal.”
4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein preferred
Revision Petition No.1841 of 2023 before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission. The National Commission based on the
powers conferred on it under Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act
and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rubi
Chandra Dutta v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, held
that the National forum could not find any infirmity or material irregularity
or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. Further it is
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
stated that both the fora, namely, District Consumer Forum and State
Consumer Forum have given well reasoned orders.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the National
Commission has not appreciated the grounds raised relating to the facts.
Therefore the present writ petition is to be considered.
6. Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as
under:-
“58(1)(b). to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in
any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been
decided by any State Commission where it appears to the
National Commission that such State Commission has
exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to
exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of
its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”
7. The scope of revision under Section 58 has been explicitly
contemplated under the said provision. Accordingly, if the State
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed
to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its
jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission
may intervene and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute. When
the scope of revision petition has been expressly stipulated under Section
58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, the grounds raised by the writ
petitioner before this Court that the National Commission has erred in not
appreciating the facts, deserves no merit consideration.
8. This Court has perused the grounds raised before the National
Commission as well as the findings made in the context of Section 58(1)(b)
of the Consumer Protection Act. Since both the fora, namely, District
Consumer Forum and State Consumer Forum adjudicated the facts in detail
and made their findings, further adjudication on facts may not be required.
9. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is to ensure the processes through which the
decision has been taken by the competent authorities/forum in consonance
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
with the statutes and rules in force, but not the decision itself. Thus the
scope of judicial review need not be expanded when two fora have
elaborately adjudicated the facts and recorded their findings. Thus we do
not find any infirmity in respect of the order impugned passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is in
consonance with Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes 20.03.2025
ss
To
1. The Chairman, T.N.E.B.,
presently TANGEDCO
Mount Road
Chennai 600 002
2. The Executive Engineer (O & M)
T.N.E.B. presently TANGEDCO
Porur, Chennai 600 116
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer
T.N.E.B., presently TANGEDCO
Thirumudivakkam
Chennai 600 132
4. The Assistant Engineer
T.N.E.B., presently TANGEDCO
Thirumudivakkam
Chennai 600 132
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ss
20.03.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
