CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

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

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 23 July 1990 · Citation: 1991 2 CPR 414 : 1992 2 CPJ 563

HON’BLE JUDGES
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 stems from a decision by the Surat District Forum rejecting the complainant's case on jurisdictional grounds. It was undisputed that the Head Office of the Gujarat Electricity Board is located in Baroda, which falls within the Surat District Forum's jurisdiction. The District Forum's order was criticized for being issued without a hearing and for not considering the relevant jurisdictional aspects under the Consumer Protection Act.

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

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 306 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. ORDER

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.