Tukaram S/O Sadashiv Chaudhari vs The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Anr.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3578 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) No(s) 29994 of 2016)

TUKARAM S/O SADASHIV CHAUDHARI Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal arises from a decision of the National Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 6 June 2016 by which

compensation of Rs 2,00,000 has been granted to the appellant.

The appellant who is an agriculturist holds agricultural

land bearing Gat No. 258/1B admeasuring five Hectares and

fifteen Ares situated 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 26 December 1996 and deposited

charges of Rs 2,620. On 31 July 2004, he deposited a further

sum of Rs 2,250 towards meter charges.

Signature Not Verified The respondent raised a bill for consumption charges between Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date: 2019.04.11 17:02:09 IST Reason: 30 September 2005 and 31 December 2005 amounting to Rs 1,380.

The appellant claimed that no electricity connection had been

1 (“NCDRC”) 2

installed.

In these circumstances, he filed a consumer complaint on 14

July 2006 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum, Nandurbar2.

In the written statement, the case of the respondent was

that an electricity connection was granted to the appellant.

The respondent stated that after applying for a connection in

1996 for the grant of an electricity connection, the appellant

did not submit a test report in spite of a public notice dated

7 July 2004. This had resulted in delay, which was

attributable to the appellant. Evidently, the test report was

received by the respondent on 24 March 2005. According to the

respondent, after the receipt of the report, the work of

issuing electricity bills was going on and a bill was issued to

the appellant. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the

delay in the grant of an electricity connection to the

appellant was on account of the default of the appellant since

it was only in March 2005 that the test report was submitted.

The District Forum by its order dated 24 January 2007

allowed the complaint in the following terms:

“1) The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the opponents shall pay to the complainant the amount of Rs 4870 (in words Rupees Four Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Only) plus the expenditure of borewell of Rs 30,000/- [in words Rupees Thirty Thousand only], so also the amount of Rs 1,00,000/- [in words Rupees One Lakh Only] towards physical, mental agony and financial loss, thus total Rs. 1,34,870/- [in words Rupees One Lakh Thirty Four

2 “District Forum” 3

Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Only] on or before 22.2.2007, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the said amount together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22.2.2007 till realization of the said amount.

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

In appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3

reversed the order of the District Forum on 19 December 2013.

The SCDRC held that though the appellant had applied for an

electricity connection in 1996, he did not submit a test

report. The SCDRC held that at the highest, the respondent

could be held liable for a deficiency in service as the

electricity connection was not given even after 2007. Yet the

appeal was allowed and the complaint was, in consequence,

dismissed.

When the appellant carried the matter to the NCDRC, the

revision was initially dismissed. However, the appellant filed

a review petition. The Review Petition was allowed and a

compensation of Rs 2,00,000 was awarded to the appellant.

Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant submits that this is a case where an

agriculturist was left in the lurch for nearly nineteen years

3 “SCDRC” 4

after the submission of an application for the grant of an

electricity connection. It was urged that in the written

statement, a false stand was taken by the respondent to the

effect that the electricity connection had already been

granted. The fact of the matter is that it was only when the

High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed an order on 14 August

2015 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247 of 2005 that the

connection was granted on 4 September 2015. Hence, it was urged

that a case for the grant of compensation was made out since

the appellant was disabled from using his bore well in the

absence of electricity. The purpose of having a bore well was

defeated as a consequence 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, does not meet the

requirement of fair compensation.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent submitted that it was the failure of the

appellant to submit a test report for nearly eight years after

the submission of the application that led to a delay in the

grant of an electricity connection. Reliance was placed on an

undertaking alleged to have been issued by the appellant on 2

February 2007 to the effect that he had been granted a

connection for the purposes of the bore well after the order of

the District Forum (On this aspect, Mr. Navare, learned senior

counsel has pointed out that the alleged undertaking has been

produced for the first time before this Court in the counter 5

affidavit and was not either pleaded or set up in the

proceedings before the District Forum.)

The facts as they emerge from the record indicate that

the appellant had initially applied for an electricity

connection in December 1996. The appellant, however, submitted

a test report, which is a requirement for obtaining such a

connection, only in March 2005. Hence, the respondent cannot

be faulted for the delay which occurred between the date of the

submission of the application and until the appellant complied

with the requirement of submitting a test report.

But the fact of the matter is that the test report was

submitted on 24 March 2005. There is no cogent explanation on

the part of the respondent as to why a decade thereafter

elapsed before the electricity connection was granted to the

appellant. As a matter of fact, a criminal complaint was lodged

by the appellant. Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/2015 was

instituted by the Executive Engineer of the respondent. On 14

August 2015, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while

quashing the complaint, passed the following order:

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

2. In the light of statement of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, on instructions of Respondent No. 1, submits that, the Respondent No. 1 has no 6

objection, if the Petition is allowed and the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 4/2015 pending on the file of J.M.F.C. Shahada are quashed and set aside along with Crime No. 1/2015 under Sections 166, 167, 384, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A and 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. 4/2015 pending on the file of J.M.F.C. Shahada and Crime No. 1/2015 under Sections 166, 167, 384, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A and 34 of I.P.C. r/w Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2002 registered with Sarangkheda Police Station, Dist.

Nandurbar are quashed and set aside. The Petition stands allowed in above terms.”

The above order indicates that a statement was made on

behalf of the respondents that a new meter with electricity

supply will be provided to the agricultural field of the

appellant on 5 September 2015. Such an exercise was carried

out on 4 September 2015.

In this background, we are of the view that the appellant

has suffered hardship and inconvenience as a result of an

unexplained delay of one decade on the part of the

respondent(s) in granting an electricity connection. After the

submission of the test report, no further steps were required

to be carried out by the appellant. The appellant evidently

required an electricity connection for the purpose of

activating the bore well for supplying water to his

agricultural fields.

In our view, having regard to the above facts and

circumstances of the case, the grant of compensation by the

NCDRC in the amount of Rs 2,00,000 will not be adequate to meet 7

the requirement of just and fair compensation to a consumer who

has suffered as a consequence of the default of the respondent.

We accordingly, enhance the compensation which has been

awarded by the NCDRC to an amount of Rs 5,00,000 which shall be

paid over within a period of four weeks from today. In default,

the compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent

per annum.

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

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

.............................J. (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)

..............................J. (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI APRIL 8, 2019 8

ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 29994/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-06-2016 in RA No. 98/2016 06-06-2016 in RP No. 1737/2014 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)

TUKARAM S/O SADASHIV CHAUDHARI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 08-04-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Gwen Karthika, Adv.

Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Neetika Sharma, Adv.

for M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable

order.

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

(MANISH SETHI) (SUNIL KUMAR RAJVANSHI) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)