Case: TUKARAM S/O SADASHIV CHAUDHARI Vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. &amp; ANR

3. 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 charges4. The respondent raised a bill for consumption charges between 30 September 2005 and 31 December 2005 amounting to Rs 1,380. The appellant claimed that no electricity connection had been installed5. In these circumstances, he filed a consumer complaint on 14 July 2006 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nandurbar (?District Forum?)6. 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 submitted7. 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 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.?8. In appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (?SCDRC?) 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, dismissed9. 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.

Court's reasoning:
12. 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 report14. 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 201515. 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 fields16. 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 the requirement of just and fair compensation to a consumer who has suffered as a consequence of the default of the respondent.