Counsel for the parties are agreed that the impugned order be set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in Para 14 and 16 in Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Mam Chand  - (2006) 4 SCC 649, which reads as under :

“In this case we are concerned with the scope and extent of the beneficial consumer jurisdiction, particularly with regard to technical subjects falling under provisions such as the Electricity Act, 2003. 

Under Section 2(c) of the 1986 Act "complaint" is defined to mean allegation in writing made by a complainant that the service provider has charged for the services, a price in excess of the price fixed under the law for the time being in force [See: Section 2(c)(iv)].  Under section 2(d) "consumer" is defined to mean any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised.  Under section 2(g) of the said 1986, Act the word "deficiency" is defined to mean any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.  The word "goods" is defined under section 2(i) to mean goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.  "Service" also defined under section 2(o) of the said 1986 Act to mean service of any description which is made available to users in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing,

supply of electrical energy, entertainment etc.  Therefore, supply of electric energy by the Nigam falls under section 2(o) of the said 1986 Act.  However, the question which arises for determination and which has not been decided is : whether the beneficial consumer jurisdiction extends to determination of tortious acts and liability arising therefrom by the Consumer Forum.  In this connection, it is urged on behalf of the Nigam that assessment of the duty for unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, distribution of meters and calibration of electric current are matters of technical nature which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum.  It is urged that under the Electricity Act, 2003 the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded.  In this connection reliance was placed on section 145 of the said 2003 Act under which the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suits in respect of matters falling under Section 126 is expressly barred.  These are matters of assessment.  According to the Nigam, the said 2003 Act is a complete code by itself and therefore in matters of assessment of electricity bills the Consumer Forum should have directed the respondent to move before the competent authority under the Electricity Act, 2003 read with rules framed thereunder either expressly or by incorporation.

In our view, the contentions advanced on behalf of the Nigam require deeper consideration by the State Commission.  None of the above points have been discussed by the State Commission in this case.  Disputes of this nature are repeatedly arising before this court.  At this stage, we do not wish to express any opinion.  In our opinion, for the foregoing reasons the civil appeal filed by the Nigam deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed.

We accordingly direct the State Commission to decide the matter on facts of this case in the light of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the rules framed thereunder.”

          Order under revision is set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in Mam Chand (supra).

          Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 24.11.2010.

          Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeals expeditiously and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance of the parties.

          The status quo, as it exists, to continue till the appeal is decided by the State Commission.