Full Judgment Text
1
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
1
Disputes Redressal Commission 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.
The respondent raised a bill for consumption charges between
Signature Not Verified
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
2
Forum, Nandurbar .
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.”
3
In appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
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
th
statement that, by 5 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)