1

NAME

DIVISION & ROLL NUMBER

PRN

SUBMITTED TO
 2

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (KPTC) v Ashok Iron Works

Private Limited

 How the factual matter of the case arose?

The case dates back to the last century, when in 1991, Ashok Iron Works, a private company
that manufactures iron applied for obtaining electricity from the state’s power generation
company – the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (hereinafter KTPC) for
commencing its iron production. However, despite paying charges and obtaining
confirmation for the supply of 1500 KVA energy in February 1991, the actual supply did not
begin until ten months later, in November 1991. This delay led to incurring of losses by the
private company. This prompted a complaint to the Belgaum Consumer Dispute Forum and
later Karnataka High Court, under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for the delay in supply
of electricity.
 3

 Legal Arguments by KPTC-

Commercial supply not covered under the act – The major argument relied on by the power
generation company KTPC was that the complaint was not maintainable since the Consumer
Protection Act 1986 excludes commercial supply of goods. The applicant company was
engaged in manufacturing of iron, and hence, intended to use the electricity for commercial
consumption, which is excluded under the act.
A private company is not a consumer – The other argument by KTPC was that the complaint
is not maintainable because the complainant is not a `person’ under Section 2(1)(m) of the
Act, 1986. This section defines who can be included as a consumer, and because it didn’t
contain “a company incorporated under Companies Act” – the applicant company is not a
consumer.

 Supreme Court Ruling in the case

i. “Includes – is an inclusive definition” – Supreme Court relied on the ruling in Dilworth
v. Commissioner of Stamps, where Lord Watson said that the word “include” is very
generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or
phrases occurring in the body of the statute; It may be equivalent to “mean and
include”. The court also relied on other acts such as the General Clauses Act that
includes a private company within the purview of the definition of a “person”. Hence,
Ashok Iron Works Private Company was held to be a person.
ii. Supply doesn’t mean sale – The Supreme Court relied on another case – Southern
Petrochemical Industries, where it was held that supply is not equivalent to a sale.
Therefore, the supply of electricity by the KPTC to a consumer would be covered
under Section 2(1)(o) being `service’ and if the supply of electrical energy to a
consumer is not provided in time as is agreed upon, then under Section (2)(1)(g),
there may be a case for deficiency in service. Thus, the clause stating “supply” of
goods for commercial purpose would not apply.
Thus, the court allowed the complaint on the two grounds that the applicant – Ashok Iron
Works Private Limited, can sue as a person, and that supply of electricity, if found deficient
can be a fit ground for claiming compensation. The Supreme Court sent the case back to
District Forum for retrial on these grounds.
 4

COMPANIES ACT

Shiv Prakash Rai VS CPIO: Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited

ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)
before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited seeking
information about tenders invited by Buxar Power Project for residence of employees,
vehicles, for office and comparative charts of participants. He also sought, inter-alia, the rate
at which residences, vehicles and offices were hired and the monthly payment made under
the head of residential rents, vehicle charges and office rents since the inception of the
project.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the PIO
had sought deposit of Rs. 3100/- without informing head-wise pages, nor demand for
payment sent in prescribed format disclosing name and account number where the amount
was to be deposited. Since the FAA had simply endorsed the order of the PIO, asking the
appellant to deposit the sum without adjudicating the First Appeal, the appellant requested
the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete break-up of the sum demanded
by the PIO.

Hearing:
3. The appellant and the respondent Shri S. K. Singh, AGM and PIO, Buxar Thermal Power
Project, Buxar, Bihar attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that in response to his RTI application, he has received a demand
of Rs. 3100/- from the respondent, to be deposited to obtain the information. However, he
could not deposit the requisite fee as the respondent did not respond to his query about
break-up of the sum into head-wise pages, name of person in whose favour the amount is to
be deposited.
5. The respondent submitted that the total number of pages in which the information
sought is contained in 1550 pages. Hence the appellant had been requested to deposit
Rupees Three Thousand One Hundred, as the charges for photocopying. In so far as the
query of the appellant about the person concerned to whom the fee should be deposited,
 5

the respondent clarified that the fees for filing of the RTI application and for obtaining the
information are payable in similar manner, either online or through draft.

Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the
records, observes that the appellant could have, if he so desired, deposited the requisite fee
and obtained the information sought for after ascertaining the mode of payment of fees
from the respondent. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to furnish
complete information as available on records, within two weeks of receipt of the fees, as
mandated under the RTI Act.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

REFERENCES-
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e3224b046571b557cd502
6f
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62925067/
https://www.juriscognitionis.com/post/case-analysis-ofkarnataka-
power-transmission-corporation-v-ashok-iron-works-private-limited
https://indianlawportal.co.in/karnataka-power-transmission-
corporation-v-ashok-iron-works-private-limited/