Dispute over power bills out of consumer courts' purview

The Supreme Court has held that consumer courts cannot entertain complaints against power bills assessed under the Electricity Act or take action against power corporations. The ruling was given in an appeal moved by the UP Power Corporation Ltd against a number of consumers of electricity, who were accused by the corporation of theft of power or diversion of power to commercial use. The National Consumer Commission had ruled that they were consumers and, therefore, entitled to move consumer forums for deficiency in service. Setting aside that decision, the Supreme Court stated that indulging in "unauthorised use of electricity" does not fall within the jurisdiction of consumer forums. A complaint against the assessment made by the corporation is not maintainable before a consumer forum.

Sentence in cheque bounce cases
In a cheque bouncing case, the sentence shall normally run concurrently for the same set of offences, and not consecutively, the Supreme Court ruled last week in the case V K Bansal versus Haryana Financial Corporation. In this case, a director of a group of companies took loans from the corporation for three of the firms. The repayment cheques bounced and therefore 15 cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed against him by the corporation and he was convicted in them and sentenced to undergo imprisonment from six months to one year. Appeals to the high court were also dismissed. He moved the Supreme Court, pleading that the sentences should run concurrently and not consecutively. The court, after analysing Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with such situation, stated that the court has discretion to pass such orders to benefit the prisoner in case the prosecution is based on a single transaction, no matter several complaints have been filed. Applying the principle, the court analysed the complaints and ruled that except in one case, the sentences shall run concurrently.

VRS not a matter of right

A voluntary retirement scheme introduced by a company does not entitle an employee as a matter of right to the benefits of the scheme. Whether an employee should be allowed to retire in terms of the scheme is a decision which can be taken only by the employer, except in cases where the scheme itself provides for retirement to take effect when the notice period comes to an end, the Supreme Court stated in the judgment, C V Francis versus Union of India. In this case, a manager of the Steel Authority of India applied for voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) and left the country to take up employment in the US. He did not join duty and the application for VRS was not accepted. His services were terminated. He challenged these actions in the Jharkhand high court which rejected his arguments. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal.

Road accident compensation
The Supreme Court has ruled that in a road accident, the claim for compensation is payable both for loss of earning capacity as well as permanent disability. The Madras High Court had held to the contrary in the case, S Manickam versus Metropolitan Transport Corporation. It had set aside the award amount of Rs 1 lakh under the head permanent disability on the ground that substantial amount had been fixed under the head loss of earning capacity. The victim was 45 years old and he was running a furniture firm with 15 employees. The Supreme Court stated that the compensation was low and awarded Rs 8.5 lakh. It observed: "The determination of quantum in motor accident cases and compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act must be liberal since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales. The adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to take note of the suffering of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned."

Minister's role in land acquisition
The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of a 1987 land acquisition for expansion of a market in Pune in which the then state revenue minister, Narayan Rane, was accused of changing the plan for the benefit of some developers. The minister withdrew the acquisition after several years, allegedly to benefit some parties. In the appeal, Mutha Associates versus State of Maharashtra, the minister wanted to remove certain harsh observations made by the high court, but the Supreme Court deleted them only partly. The judgment stated that the minister's direction to withdraw the acquisition was "arbitrary, lacked objectivity and ignored the material on record." He did not give an opportunity to the municipality to show why the acquisition was necessary for public purpose. The high court had observed that the minister had "tried to overreach the judicial process" and acted mala fide. The Supreme Court dropped the allegation of mala fide but retained the rest of the remarks against the minister.