TUKARAM S/O SADASHIV CHAUDHARI versus THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ANR. on 8 April 2019

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a decision of the National ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission[1] dated 6 June 2016 by whichcompensation of Rs 2,00,000 has been granted to the appellant.E

3. The appellant who is an agriculturist holds agricultural landbearing Gat No. 258/1B admeasuring five Hectares and fifteen Aressituated at Mauje Bamkheda Taluka Shahada, District Nandurbar,Maharashtra. The appellant caused a bore well to be dug on the land.He then applied for an electricity connection to the respondent on 26FDecember 1996 and deposited charges of Rs 2,620. On 31 July 2004, hedeposited a further sum of Rs 2,250 towards meter charges.

4. The respondent raised a bill for consumption charges between30 September 2005 and 31 December 2005 amounting to Rs 1,380. Theappellant claimed that no electricity connection had been installed.

G

5. In these circumstances, he filed a consumer complaint on 14July 2006 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Nandurbar[2].

H

1(“NCDRC”)

2“District Forum”

6. In the written statement, the case of the respondent was thatan electricity connection was granted to the appellant. The respondentstated that after applying for a connection in 1996 for the grant of anelectricity connection, the appellant did not submit a test report in spiteof a public notice dated 7 July 2004. This had resulted in delay, whichwas attributable to the appellant. Evidently, the test report was receivedby the respondent on 24 March 2005. According to the respondent,after the receipt of the report, the work of issuing electricity bills wasgoing on and a bill was issued to the appellant. In the circumstances, itwas submitted that the delay in the grant of an electricity connection tothe appellant was on account of the default of the appellant since it wasonly in March 2005 that the test report was submitted.

7. The District Forum by its order dated 24 January 2007 allowedthe complaint in the following terms:

“1) The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and theopponents shall pay to the complainant the amount of Rs 4870 (inwords Rupees Four Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Only) plusthe expenditure of borewell of Rs 30,000/- [in words Rupees ThirtyThousand only], so also the amount of Rs 1,00,000/- [in wordsRupees One Lakh Only] towards physical, mental agony andfinancial loss, thus total Rs. 1,34,870/- [in words Rupees One LakhThirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Only] on or before22.2.2007, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recoverthe said amount together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22.2.2007till realization of the said amount.

[2] The opponent should give electricity connection to thecomplainant as per rules before 22.2.2007 on getting complianceof necessary amount of documents, failing which the complainantwill be entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 11,34,870/- [in wordsRs. Eleven Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Seventyonly] as demanded by him in his complaint.”

8. In appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission[3]reversed the order of the District Forum on 19 December 2013. TheSCDRC held that though the appellant had applied for an electricityconnection in 1996, he did not submit a test report. The SCDRC heldthat at the highest, the respondent could be held liable for a deficiency inservice as the electricity connection was not given even after 2007. Yetthe appeal was allowed and the complaint was, in consequence, dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A9. When the appellant carried the matter to the NCDRC, therevision was initially dismissed. However, the appellant filed a reviewpetition. The Review Petition was allowed and a compensation of Rs2,00,000 was awarded to the appellant.

10. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel appearing on behalfBof the appellant submits that this is a case where an agriculturist was leftin the lurch for nearly nineteen years after the submission of an applicationfor the grant of an electricity connection. It was urged that in the writtenstatement, a false stand was taken by the respondent to the effect thatthe electricity connection had already been granted. The fact of thematter is that it was only when the High Court of Judicature at BombayCpassed an order on 14 August 2015 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247 of2005 that the connection was granted on 4 September 2015. Hence, itwas urged that a case for the grant of compensation was made outsince the appellant was disabled from using his bore well in the absenceof electricity. The purpose of having a bore well was defeated as aDconsequence of which the land of the appellant could not be irrigated.The damage which was sustained by the appellant, was in the submission,liable to be compensated. The award of Rs 2,00,000, it was urged, doesnot meet the requirement of fair compensation.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theErespondent submitted that it was the failure of the appellant to submit atest report for nearly eight years after the submission of the applicationthat led to a delay in the grant of an electricity connection. Reliance wasplaced on an undertaking alleged to have been issued by the appellant on2 February 2007 to the effect that he had been granted a connection forthe purposes of the bore well after the order of the District Forum (OnFthis aspect, Mr. Navare, learned senior counsel has pointed out that thealleged undertaking has been produced for the first time before this Courtin the counter affidavit and was not either pleaded or set up in theproceedings before the District Forum.)

12. The facts as they emerge from the record indicate that theGappellant had initially applied for an electricity connection in December1996. The appellant, however, submitted a test report, which is arequirement for obtaining such a connection, only in March 2005. Hence,the respondent cannot be faulted for the delay which occurred between H3“SCDRC”

the date of the submission of the application and until the appellant compliedwith the requirement of submitting a test report.

13. But the fact of the matter is that the test report was submittedon 24 March 2005. There is no cogent explanation on the part of therespondent as to why a decade thereafter elapsed before the electricityconnection was granted to the appellant. As a matter of fact, a criminalcomplaint was lodged by the appellant.Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/2015 was instituted by the Executive Engineer of the respondent. On 14August 2015, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while quashingthe complaint, passed the following order:

“The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructionsof Assistant Engineer i.e. petitioner no. 2, makes a statement that,by 5[th] September, 2015 the new meter with electric supply will besupplied in agricultural field of Respondent no. 1 i.e. in Gut No.258/1B at Bamkheda Shivar, Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. Theearlier electricity bills will be treated as ‘Zero’.

2. In the light of statement of the learned Advocate appearing forthe petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, on instructions of Respondent No. 1, submits that, theRespondent No. 1 has no objection, if the Petition is allowed andthe proceedings in R.C.C. No. 4/2015 pending on the file ofJ.M.F.C. Shahada are quashed and set aside along with CrimeNo. 1/2015 under Sections 166, 167, 384, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477Aand 34 of I.P.C. r/w Section 66D of Information Technology Act,2002 registered with Sarangkheda Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar.

3. In the light of above, the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 4/2015pending on the file of J.M.F.C. Shahada and Crime No. 1/2015under Sections 166, 167, 384, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A and 34 ofI.P.C. r/w Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2002registered with Sarangkheda Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar arequashed and set aside. The Petition stands allowed in aboveterms.”

14. The above order indicates that a statement was made on behalfof the respondents that a new meter with electricity supply will beprovided to the agricultural field of the appellant on 5 September 2015.Such an exercise was carried out on 4 September 2015.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A15. In this background, we are of the view that the appellant hassuffered hardship and inconvenience as a result of an unexplained delayof one decade on the part of the respondent(s) in granting an electricityconnection. After the submission of the test report, no further stepswere required to be carried out by the appellant. The appellant evidentlyrequired an electricity connection for the purpose of activating the boreBwell for supplying water to his agricultural fields.

16. In our view, having regard to the above facts and circumstancesof the case, the grant of compensation by the NCDRC in the amount ofRs 2,00,000 will not be adequate to meet the requirement of just and faircompensation to a consumer who has suffered as a consequence of theCdefault of the respondent.

17. We accordingly, enhance the compensation which has beenawarded by the NCDRC to an amount of Rs 5,00,000 which shall bepaid over within a period of four weeks from today. In default, thecompensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

D

18. The civil appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

E

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

F

G

H