State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Msedcl, City Division Hingoli vs Rajabhai Ramji Kharate on 15 April, 2026
1
Date of filing :26.11.2018
Date of order :15.04.2026
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 559 OF 2018
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 34 OF 2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : HINGOLI.
1. Maharashtra State Electricity Appellants
Distribution Co.Ltd, (Adv.P.S.Mehta)
City Division, Hingoli, Tq.&Dist.Hingoli,
Through its Executive Engineer,
2. Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co.Ltd,
MSEDCL Office Aundha(Nagnath), Dist.Hingoli,
Through its Assistant Engineer,
Ashwinkumar Ramlal Meshram,
R/o Vaskat Tq. Vasmat, Dist.Hingoli.
VERSUS
Mrs.Rajabai w/o Ramji Kharate, Respondent
R/o At Post Matha, Tq.Aundha Nagnath, (Dead)
Dist.Hingoli.
Through her legal hair, (in person)
Mr.Sudam Ramji Kharate.
CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 15/04/2026) Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the learned District 2 Consumer Distputes Redressal Commission, Hingoli (the 'District Commission' for short) in CC No. 34/2017, in which the District Commission directed the appellants to pay to the respondent sum of Rs.1 Lakh as compensation for loss of crop along with interest @ 8 % p.a. within a month, for not providing electricity supply and to give her the supply within a week failing which also pay compensation @ Rs.100/- per day along with Rs.5,000/- as a costs of the proceedings.
2. The facts of the appeal are that, the respondent is the son of the original complainant namely Rajabai Ramji Kharate. She died on 24/03/2024 i.e. during the pendency of this appeal. She was having the agricultural land bearing Gat No. 320 Mauje Matha, Tq.Aundha Nagnath, Dist.Hingoli. On 31.11.2012, she paid quotation amount of Rs.7,100/- for obtaining the electricity connection for 5 HP motor. Even after the 5 years of her payment of the quotation amount the appellants not provided her the connection. On the contrary on 6.11.2017 they issued her bill of Rs.29,988/-. The appellants thus, without providing her electricity connection issued huge bill. It is therefore, she filed above referred consumer complaint seeking quashing of the disputed bill, as well as Rs.5 Lakh for the loss occurred to her in agriculture produce, and compensation of Rs.1,000/- per day for not providing electricity supply. She also prayed District Commission to grant her compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental and physical harassment along with Rs.10,000/- as the costs of the proceedings.
33. The appellants appeared before the District Commission and contested the claim of the respondent. It is contended by them that, the work order for providing the electricity connections to the farmers of Aundha(Nagnath) Taluka was given to M/s S. Construction. Accordingly on 1.7.2015 electricity poles were laid in the farms. The contractor was doing that work in the sequence. However, in August 2017 the contractor died and no new contractor was appointed. Because of the lack of the funds the work remained incomplete. The respondent participated in the scheme of the Government of Maharashtra namely Mahavitaran Aplya Dari. As per the guidelines under the scheme the participant farmers were permitted to obtain the electricity supply by means of cable from the available pole. In all 3133 farmers were to be provided with the electricity supply. The farmers who were allowed to obtain such a supply are subjected to the bill payment for their consumption. Accordingly, the disputed bill has lawfully been given to the respondent. There is no deficiency in service. As such, the appellants prayed the District Commission for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Commission after evaluating the evidence and on hearing the learned counsels of both sides recorded the findings that, there was no sufficient reason for the appellants for not giving electricity supply to the respondent over the long period of time. There is great deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in issuing huge bill of Rs.29,988/- without giving any supply. The disputed bill has not mention as to the period of the billing and the rate per unit of the supply applied. As 4 such, the District Commission directed the appellants to pay to the respondent as mentioned in para no.1 of this judgment.
5. We heard learned Adv.P.S.Mehta for the appellants and the respondent in person.
6. Adv. Mehta for the appellants submitted that, the mother of the respondent was the beneficiary of the scheme namely Mahavitran Aplya Dari. She paid the quotation amount, but infrastructure required to provide the electricity supply to the respondent along with similarly situated farmers was not available. There was need to erect the same and the contractor who was appointed started his work but died in August 2017. In all 3133 farmers were to be provided electricity supply under the scheme. But after the death of the contractor no new contractor came to be appointed for the want of funds. As per guidelines under the scheme the participant farmers were allowed to take the electricity supply by means of cable from the pole whichever is available to them. Therefore, they are under a duty to pay the electricity bill. The disputed bill has rightly been issued to the respondent. There is no deficiency in service caused the respondent. But the District Commission ignored these facts. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is based on assumption and presumption and without application of mind. The District Commission failed to appreciate that, the respondent has used the electricity and as per her consumption disputed bill is issued. Thus, according to him the impugned judgment is against the provisions of law and evidence on record.
57. On the other hand it is the submission of the respondent in person is that, even after the payment of the quotation amount, the appellants never provided the electricity supply, though it was their legal duty. The appellants provided the electricity connection to the other famers in the vicinity selectively and with bias. Many of the farmers were given the supply who were later in queue than him. No valid reason has been given by the appellants for not providing her electricity supply and despite of that they issued illegal bill of huge amount. The District Commission rightly held them to be liable for deficient service. There is no illegality or improper appreciation by the District Commission in the impugned judgment. The same may kindly be confirmed.
8. In the background of the above submissions it is relevant to mention here that, there are certain legal provisions which governs the above aspect of giving electricity connection to the consumers. S.43 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates that, every distribution licensee shall on the receipt of the complete application for obtaining the electricity connection provide the electricity supply within one month. The proviso to the above section says that, where such supply requires extension of distribution lines or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall provide the supply immediately after that work or within such period as may be specified by Electricity Regulatory Commission. S.43(2) further provides that, every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply as contemplated under S.43(1) of the Electricity Act,2003.
69. In pursuance of the above provisions Maharasthra Electricity Regulatory Commission has framed the rules Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensee, Period For Giving Supply and Determination Of Compensation) Regulation, 2005 ('Standards of Performance and Compensation, Rules' for short) Rule 4 makes certain important provisions for providing maximum period for giving the supply. Rule 4.1 casts a duty on the Distribution Licensee to give the supply within one month after receipt of the application. Rule 4.5 which is very much relevant to the present appeal says that, where the supply of electricity to the premises requires extension or augmentation of distribution mains, the distribution licensee is given three months to provide the supply. Rule 4.6 provides that, where the supply of electricity requires commissioning of new substation forming part of distribution system the distribution licensee shall give supply within one year from the date of the application.
10. In the present appeal the appellant merely stated and demonstrated that there was lack of infrastructure to provide the electricity supply to the respondent, and that too since 2012. It has not been categorically pleaded before the District Commission that, what is the exact work they need to do to provide the supply. Whether they are required the extension or augmentation of distribution line or they are required commissioning of new substation forming part of distribution system has not been stated/affirmed by the appellant anywhere in their pleading. It needs to be appreciated that, the respondent applied for the electricity supply in the year 2012 7 and filed the complaints in 2017. During the entire period appellant not communicated anything to them on paper to inform that, there is need of infrastructure which needs to be erected and therefore, they are unable to provide electricity connection. Even if it is assumed that, for the purpose of giving the electricity supply to the respondent the appellants were to commission new substation, they ought to have provided the same to the respondents within a maximum period of one year from the date of the receipt of the application. We are of the view that, the appellants have totally failed to discharge their obligation under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations made there under.
11. The above provisions made it very clear that there is imperative duty on the appellants to provide electricity supply in a stipulated time limit. The maximum period is one year. In the present matter appellants have not given any valid and acceptable reason for not providing the electricity supply over the long period of time. Similarly, though the appellants tried to justify the disputed bill on the ground that, the respondent was permitted to use the electricity supply by means of cables from nearby available poles, but they have not produced any evidence to prove the same. No such written authorisation issued by the appellants to the respondent in this regard. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that, the respondent was given such supply, but the disputed bill does not indicate the period for which it has been issued and what was the rate per unit for such a supply applied. The District Commission rightly appreciated these facts and we do not see any reason to interfere the findings given by the District Commission. The 8 impugned judgment, thus will have to be confirmed by dismissing this appeal. In the facts and circumstances, it will be just to direct the appellants to pay to the respondent sum of Rs.10,000/- as the cost of this proceedings. The interim order in favour of the appellants will have to be vacated. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The impugned judgment is hereby confirmed.
3. The appellants are directed to pay to the respondent sum of Rs.10,000/- as the costs of this proceedings.
4. The interim order in favour of the appellants stands vacated.
5. Copy of this judgment be furnished both sides free of cost.
Nagesh C.Kumbre Milind S.Sonawane
Member Presiding Member
UNK