CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

KADAVABHAI ARJANBHAI CHITRODA vs CHIEF ENGINEER (RURAL ELECTRIFICATION) GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 8 January 1992 · Citation: 1992 0 CPC 163 : 1992 1 CPR 445 : 1992 2 CPJ 482 : 1993 1 CLT 241

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.A.Shah , Leelaben Trivedi , R.K.Shah J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

8-section analysis generated from the full judgment text · gpt-4o-mini

This appeal arises from a short order of the Surat District Forum dismissing the complainant's case for lack of jurisdiction. The Gujarat Electricity Board's head office is located within the Surat District, which the complainant argued entitled the District Forum to hear the case. The appeal highlighted procedural issues, including that the complainant was not heard and jurisdictional facts were not properly considered. The court referenced similar matters decided previously.

AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 305 words
1.

THIS appeal arises from a short order of Surat District Forum dated 25.1.1990 whereby notifying the complainant that his complaint being not within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, the same has been filed.

2.

THERE is no dispute that the Gujarat Electricity Board has its head office at Baroda which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Surat District Forum. The order of the District Forum suffers from two infirmities, namely (1) That the complaint has been filed without hearing the appellant; and (2) That the Forum has not taken into consideration the fact that the head office of the Gujarat Electricity Board (carrying business at Baroda) is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and therefore, the Surat District Forum had jurisdiction to hear the complaint in view of the provision of Sec. 11(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

We have decided similar matters in Appeal No. 4 of 1990 and Complaint No. 5 of 1990, therefore, we are following decisions in Appeal No. 4 and Complaint No. 5 of 1990.

3.

THE appeal is therefore, allowed. THE order of the District Forum (in a form of a latter) is set aside and we further direct that the appropriate District Forum will hear the complaint on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. After the decision of the District Forum, the District Judge of the concerned Districts have been appointed as District Forum in their respective Districts. It is therefore, clarified that if the appellant desires to file afresh complaint in his own District where the electric connection has not been given, he may make an application and the District Forum shall grant permission to withdraw this complaint to enable the complainant to file a fresh complaint in his District Forum. Pronounced in Open Court Appeal allowed.