Consumer Wins Electricity Dispute: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Delay

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated April 8, 2019, ruled in favor of a consumer in a prolonged dispute over the delayed installation of an electricity connection. The case, Tukaram S/o Sadashiv Chaudhari vs. The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., involved a complaint filed by the appellant, an agriculturist, who was deprived of an electricity connection for nearly 19 years. The Supreme Court not only upheld the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) but also enhanced it to Rs.5,00,000.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Tukaram Chaudhari, an agriculturist from Bamkheda, Maharashtra, had applied for an electricity connection for his agricultural land in December 1996. The land, bearing Gat No. 258/1B, required an electricity supply to operate a bore well for irrigation.

Despite the appellant depositing the required fees, the connection was not provided. The chronology of payments was as follows:

December 26, 1996: Application for connection submitted with a deposit of Rs.2,620.
July 31, 2004: Additional deposit of Rs.2,250 towards meter charges.
Between September 30, 2005, and December 31, 2005: The electricity board issued a bill for Rs.1,380, despite not providing a connection.

Frustrated by the delay, the appellant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nandurbar, in July 2006.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant argued that despite repeated requests and payments, the electricity board failed to provide a connection.
He contended that the delay severely affected his agricultural activities, leading to financial losses.
He sought compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and the costs incurred for the bore well.

Arguments by the Respondents

The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) claimed that the delay was due to the appellant’s failure to submit a mandatory test report.
The respondents asserted that a public notice dated July 7, 2004, had been issued, instructing applicants to submit test reports.
They argued that the appellant finally submitted the report in March 2005, and efforts were made to process the connection.

District Consumer Forum’s Order

The District Forum ruled in favor of the appellant on January 24, 2007, awarding the following compensation:

Refund of Rs.4,870 (deposit amounts).
Rs.30,000 for bore well installation costs.
Rs.1,00,000 for mental agony and financial loss.
Total compensation of Rs.1,34,870, with 12% interest per annum if unpaid by February 22, 2007.

The forum also directed the electricity board to provide the connection immediately.

Appeal Before State Commission

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) reversed the District Forum’s order on December 19, 2013, dismissing the complaint. The SCDRC held that:

The appellant failed to submit the test report on time.
The electricity board was only responsible for delays after March 2005, when the test report was finally submitted.

Appeal Before NCDRC

The appellant then approached the NCDRC, which initially dismissed his revision petition. However, upon review, the NCDRC awarded Rs.2,00,000 as compensation for the undue delay caused by the electricity board.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court noted that while the appellant delayed the submission of the test report, the electricity board failed to act even after the report was submitted in March 2005.
The delay of over 10 years in providing the connection was unexplained and constituted a gross deficiency in service.
Referring to an order of the Bombay High Court dated August 14, 2015, which directed the respondents to provide the connection by September 5, 2015, the Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant had suffered due to administrative inefficiency.
The Court held that Rs.2,00,000 was insufficient and enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,00,000.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the NCDRC from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000.
The electricity board was directed to pay the amount within four weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would be applicable.
The Court held the electricity board liable for gross negligence and deficiency in service.

Legal Implications

This judgment sets a precedent for holding service providers accountable for unreasonable delays.
It reaffirms that consumers, particularly farmers, should not suffer due to bureaucratic inefficiency.
The ruling emphasizes the importance of fair compensation for undue hardships caused by government agencies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the critical role of consumer protection laws in addressing inefficiencies in essential services. By significantly enhancing the compensation, the Court sent a strong message that service providers must be diligent and responsive to consumers’ needs. This ruling reinforces the right of consumers to seek redress for delays that cause financial and emotional hardship.

Petitioner Name: Tukaram S/o Sadashiv Chaudhari.
Respondent Name: The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Bamkheda, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 08-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Tukaram So Sadashiv vs The Executive Engine Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category