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

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 765 · Decided: 08-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
TUKARAM S/O SADASHIV CHAUDHARI
v.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA STATE
ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3578 of 2019)
APRIL 08, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Appellant, an agriculturist
held agricultural land – For a bore well to be dug on the land,
appellant applied for electricity connection to the respondent on
26 Dec. 1996 and deposited the requisite charges – Respondent
raised bill for consumption charges between 30 Sep. 2005 and 31
Dec. 2005 – Appellant filed complaint before District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission claiming that no electricity
connection had been installed– Complaint allowed– State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission reversed the order – National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the
revision – Appellant filed review petition, which was allowed –
Compensation of Rs 2,00,000/- granted to the appellant – Plea of
appellant that he was left in lurch for nearly nineteen years after
the submission of application for the grant of electricity connection
as the same was granted only on 4 Sep.2015 hence, the compensation
granted does not meet the requirement of fair compensation – Held:
Appellant applied for electricity connection in Dec.1996, however
submitted a test report, required for obtaining such connection, only
in March 2005 – 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 the
test report on 24 March 2005 – 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 on 4 Sep.2015
– After the submission of the test report, no further steps were
required to be carried out by the appellant – Appellant suffered
hardship and inconvenience as a result of an unexplained delay of
a decade on the part of the respondent(s) in granting the electricity
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 765
765
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
connection – Compensation granted by NCDRC not adequate to
meet the requirement of just and fair compensation – Compensation
enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-, be paid within four weeks from today –
In default, the compensation to carry interest at the rate of 9 % p.a.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3578
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated  06.06.2016 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Review
Application No. 98 of 2016 in Revision Petition No. 1737 of 2014.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ms. Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha R.
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Neetika Sharma (for M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates), Adv. or
the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. 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.
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 charges.
4. 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 installed.
5. In these circumstances, he filed a consumer complaint on 14
July 2006 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Nandurbar2.
1(“NCDRC”)
2“District Forum”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
767
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.