Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered an appeal by the State of Gujarat against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The dispute arose from a claim before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the respondents, a Gram Panchayat, seeking the benefit of a subsidised electricity rate of 25 paise per unit for electricity used to supply drinking water to residents from a bore-well. The State Commission upheld the panchayat's right to the subsidy. On appeal, the National Commission observed that there was substantial force in the argument of the learned Advocate General that the question of pricing did not legitimately fall within the purview of consumer forums, but declined to interfere with the State Commission's order due to the peculiar facts: only a short period of about ten months was involved, the party concerned was a Gram Panchayat, and the amount involved was small. The Supreme Court found this approach difficult to appreciate. It held that if a court does not have jurisdiction, it does not have jurisdiction, regardless of the identity of the parties, the length of the period, or the amount involved. The Court stated that if a court lacks jurisdiction, it is the obligation of the appellate court to so hold and to set aside the order under appeal. Applying this principle, the Supreme Court noted that the dispute did not legitimately fall within the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order under appeal, and dismissed the claim made by the respondents before the State Commission. No order was made as to costs.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums - Pricing Disputes Excluded - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The dispute concerned a Gram Panchayat's claim for subsidised electricity rate of 25 paise per unit for drinking water supply from a bore-well. The State of Gujarat contended that pricing did not legitimately fall within the purview of consumer forums. The Supreme Court held that consumer forums lack jurisdiction over pricing disputes, and equitable factors such as short period or small amount could not confer jurisdiction. Held appeal allowed and order set aside. B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Duty of Appellate Court - Obligation to Set Aside Order Without Jurisdiction - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission declined to interfere despite acknowledging that pricing was outside consumer forum adjudication, citing peculiar facts. The Supreme Court held that if a court lacks jurisdiction, it lacks jurisdiction regardless of circumstances, and appellate court is obliged to so hold and set aside the order under appeal. Held National Commission's approach was erroneous; appeal allowed and claim dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding electricity pricing/subsidy; Whether appellate court can decline to interfere on equitable grounds despite lack of jurisdiction
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside; claim made by respondents before State Commission dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Consumer forums lack jurisdiction to adjudicate pricing disputes
- jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by equitable considerations
- appellate court must set aside order passed without jurisdiction
- obligation of appellate court to correct jurisdictional errors
