Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tukaram S/o Sadashiv Chaudhari, an agriculturist owning agricultural land in Maharashtra, applied for an electricity connection to his bore well on 26 December 1996 and deposited charges. He submitted a test report on 24 March 2005, but the connection was not granted until 4 September 2015, following an order of the Bombay High Court in a criminal writ petition. The appellant filed a consumer complaint in 2006, which was partly allowed by the District Forum awarding Rs 1,34,870 and directing connection. The State Commission reversed the order, dismissing the complaint. The NCDRC initially dismissed the revision but later, on review, awarded Rs 2,00,000 compensation. The Supreme Court, on appeal, noted that the delay after submission of the test report was unexplained and caused hardship. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 5,00,000, payable within four weeks, with interest at 9% per annum in default. The appeal was allowed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Deficiency in Service - Electricity Connection Delay - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The appellant, an agriculturist, applied for an electricity connection in 1996 and submitted a test report in 2005, but the connection was granted only in 2015 after a High Court order. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was liable for an unexplained delay of one decade after the test report was submitted, causing hardship to the appellant. The compensation was enhanced from Rs 2,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000 with interest at 9% per annum in case of default (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation of Rs 2,00,000 awarded by the NCDRC for the delay in granting an electricity connection to the appellant was adequate and just.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, enhanced compensation from Rs 2,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000, payable within four weeks, with interest at 9% per annum in default. No costs.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Deficiency in service
- Compensation for delay
- Just and fair compensation
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 3578 of 2019 (@ SLP(C) No. 29994 of 2016)
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Gwen Karthika, Adv.; Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR; Ms. Neetika Sharma, Adv. for M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR
Tukaram S/o Sadashiv Chaudhari
The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Consumer dispute regarding delay in granting electricity connection for agricultural bore well.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought compensation for delay and direction to provide electricity connection.
Filing Reason
Appellant applied for electricity connection in 1996, deposited charges, but connection was not granted despite submission of test report in 2005; connection was finally granted in 2015 after High Court order.
Previous Decisions
District Forum partly allowed complaint awarding Rs 1,34,870 and directing connection; State Commission reversed and dismissed complaint; NCDRC initially dismissed revision but on review awarded Rs 2,00,000 compensation.
Issues
Whether the respondent was liable for deficiency in service for the delay in granting electricity connection after submission of test report?
Whether the compensation of Rs 2,00,000 awarded by NCDRC was adequate?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he was left without electricity for nearly 19 years, suffered hardship, and the compensation of Rs 2,00,000 was inadequate.
Respondent argued that delay was due to appellant's failure to submit test report for eight years; after submission, connection was granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent was liable for deficiency in service due to an unexplained delay of one decade in granting electricity connection after the appellant submitted the test report. The compensation must be just and fair, and the NCDRC's award of Rs 2,00,000 was inadequate; enhanced to Rs 5,00,000.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant who is an agriculturist holds agricultural land...
The appellant caused a bore well to be dug on the land.
The appellant submitted a test report only in 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.
The appellant has suffered hardship and inconvenience as a result of an unexplained delay of one decade.
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.
We accordingly, enhance the compensation... to an amount of Rs 5,00,000.
Procedural History
Appellant applied for electricity connection in 1996; test report submitted in 2005; connection not granted; filed consumer complaint in 2006 before District Forum; District Forum partly allowed complaint on 24 January 2007; State Commission reversed on 19 December 2013; NCDRC initially dismissed revision but on review awarded Rs 2,00,000 on 6 June 2016; Supreme Court granted leave and allowed appeal on 8 April 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 166, 167, 384, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A, 34
- Information Technology Act, 2002: 66D
