Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Msedcl, Osmanabad vs Vikram Shamrao Padwal on 12 February, 2026

                             1


                          Date of filing :25.11.2020
                          Date of order :12.02.2026

   MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
              AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 517 OF 2020
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 273 OF 2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : OSMANABAD.

1. Maharashtra State Electricity               ...Appellants
Distribution Company Ltd,.                     (Adv.P.S.Mehta)
Through its Executive Engineer,

2. Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co.Ltd,
Through Dy.Executive Engnieer,

3. Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co.Ltd,
Through Assistant Engineer,
R/o Upale, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad.

           VERSUS

Vikaram Shamrao Padwal.                        ... Respondent
R/o Upale, Tq.and Dist.Osmanabad.              (Adv.A.R.Barate)


CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
        Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member.

                    JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 12/02/2026) 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 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Osmanabad in 2 C.C.No.573/2018 whereby, the District Commission directed the appellants to pay compensation to the respondent of Rs.5,11,194/- for burning his sugarcane crops and set of drip irrigation system in his agricultural land along with Rs.3,000/- as the costs of the proceedings within 45 days of the order.

2. The respondent is the agriculturist having agriculture land Gat No. 923 situated at Mauje Upala Dist.Osmanabad. At the relevant time he cultivated sugarcane crop in the said land. The total area of cultivation was 6 acre. For the purpose of irrigation he had installed drip irrigation system of Rs.5,11,194/-. In his agriculture land he had obtained the electricity connection from the appellants. There was loop/curve in the electricity lines overhanging the field. There was frequent sparking in the two wires. He drawn attention to the same but the appellants did nothing. On 01.04.2018 at about 3 p.m. there was a spark in the eastern part of his field and the same fall down on the dry grass. Due to the wind the fire spread out and his 3 months old sugarcane crop and drip irrigation system along with mango and teak plant burnt completely. In the incident loss of Rs.9,00,000/- occurred to him. He lodged the police complaint. The Panchanamas came to be drawn by the police as well as revenue authorities. The Electrical Inspector gave his report stating that, in the D.P.box thick wire was used as fuse and therefore, sparking took place and the incident occurred. The respondent asked for the compensation but not considered favourably by the appellants. Thus, he filed the above referred Consumer Complaint before the District Commission in which the impugned judgment is passed.

3

3. The stand taken by the appellants before the District Commission was that, since the respondent has not been given electricity supply from the line, where the incident of fire took place, he is not the consumer of them. It is also contended that, the panchanamas drawn by the Tahasildar and police are not proper and without following the due process as the appellants was not given any intimation of the panchanamas. The panchanamas so prepared were prepared after 5 days of the incident and are not admissible. As such, the appellants prayed the District Commission for the dismissal of the complaint filed by the respondent.

4. The District Commission however, not agreed with the above defence of the appellant. The District Commission recorded the finding that, the electricity bill produced by the respondent on record goes to show that, he is the consumer of the appellants. It is also recorded by the District Commission that, the report of the Electrical Inspector clearly mentioned that, the incident of fire took place because of the negligence of the appellant in maintaining and repairing the electricity lines. The panchanamas prepared by the various departments of the Government including the Revenue Department proved to the satisfaction that, the loss of Rs.5,11,194/- has caused to the respondent in the incident. Since the sugarcane crop of the respondent was of 3 months old only and there is no mention in the report of the Electrical Inspector as to the mango and teak trees, the respondent is not entitle to the compensation regarding that. As such, the District Commission directed the appellants to pay the compensation as mentioned in the para no.1 of the judgment.

4

5. We heard both learned Adv.P.S.Mehta for the appellants and Adv.A.R.Barate for the respondent.

6. It is submitted by Adv. Mehta, for the appellants that, the complainant is not the consumer of the opponents, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, consumer complaint is not maintainable. According to him, undisputedly there was sparking took place in the overhanging wires gone across the field of the respondent. He has not been given any supply on that line. There is no relationship between parties as consumer and service provider. He relied on the judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in case of Hariyana State Electricity Board Vs. Mohanlal Rev. petition No. 125/1993 decided on 21 Oct. 1993 and also Hariyana State Electricity Board Vs. Smt.Gangadevi w/o Shri.Raghubirsingh Rev. petition no. 482/1996 decided on 27.11.1996.

7. On the other hand, it is the submission of Adv.Barate for the respondent that, the respondent has taken the electricity connection from the appellant. The electricity bill produced on record proves that his consumer number is 591170078801. The bill also shows that the connection is given for motor of 7.5HP. The date of supply is 15/03/1999. These facts clearly establishes that, the respondent is consumer of the appellant.

8. In the background of the above submission the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 and Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission ( Electricity Supply Code and other conditions of 5 supply ) Rules 2005 needs to be taken into consideration. The question is therefore, whether the consumer pays the consideration in respect of the supply of the electricity from generating station to the distribution main supply line or not, or he just pays for the consumption from the meter onwards in his house or farm.

9. S.61 and 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 makes the provisions, as to how the tariff/per unit for the supply of the electricity is determined and fixed. The relevant portions of these sections are reproduced below.

Section 61. (Tariff regulations):

The Appropriate Commission shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, specify the terms and conditions for the determination of tariff, and in doing so, shall be guided by the following, namely:-
(a) the principles and methodologies specified by the Central Commission for determination of the tariff applicable to generating companies and transmission licensees;
(b) the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are conducted on commercial principles;
(c) ........................
(d) safeguarding of consumers' interest and at the same time, recovery of the cost of electricity in a reasonable manner;
(e)....................
(f) ...................
(g) that, the tariff progressively reflects the cost of supply of electricity and also, reduces cross-
6

subsidies in the manner specified by the Appropriate Commission;

(h)...................

(i)....................

.

Section 62. (Determination of tariff):

(1) The Appropriate Commission shall determine the tariff in accordance with the provisions of this Act for-
(a) supply of electricity by a generating company to a distribution licensee:
Provided that, the Appropriate Commission may, in case of shortage of supply of electricity, fix the minimum and maximum ceiling of tariff for sale or purchase of electricity in pursuance of an agreement, entered into between a generating company and a licensee or between licensees, for a period not exceeding one year to ensure reasonable prices of electricity;
(b) transmission of electricity ;
(c) wheeling of electricity;
(d) retail sale of electricity:
Provided that, in case of distribution of electricity in the same area by two or more distribution licensees, the Appropriate Commission may, for promoting competition among distribution licensees, fix only maximum ceiling of tariff for retail sale of electricity. (2) The Appropriate Commission may require a licensee or a generating company to furnish separate details, as may be specified in respect of generation, transmission and distribution for determination of tariff.
(3)....................
(4)....................
(5)....................
(6)....................
7

10. Thus, from the above relevant provisions of S.61 and 62 of the Electricity Act,2003, it is clear that, the tariff per unit of the electricity supply is to be specified by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Commission fixes the rate per unit of electricity after taking into account the cost of generation, transmission and distribution of the electricity. In the State of Maharashtra, State Electricity Regulatory Commission prepared and enforced the rules for the supply of electricity, namely Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and other conditions of supply) Rules 2005. Rule 3 of that Supply Code is relevant and important. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below.

3. Recovery of Charges 3.1 The Distribution Licensee is authorized to recover charges for the supply of electricity from any person requiring such supply in accordance with the provisions of the Act and these Regulations.

3.2 The charges that a Distribution Licensee is authorized to recover under these Regulations include-

(a) recovery of such expenses as may be reasonably incurred by the Distribution Licensee in providing electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving supply, in accordance with Regulation 3.3 below;

(b) charges for electricity supplied by the Distribution Licensee in accordance with Regulation 3.4 below.

3.3 Recovery of expenses for giving supply 3.3.1 ...............

...............

8

3.3.2 Where the provision of supply to an applicant entails works of laying of service line from the distributing main to the applicant's premises, the Distribution Licensee shall be authorized to recover all expenses reasonably incurred on such works from the applicant, based on the schedule of charges approved by the Commission under Regulation 18:

Provided that the Distribution Licensee shall be entitled to use such service line to supply electricity to any other person, notwithstanding that all expenses reasonably incurred have been recovered in accordance with this Regulation 3.3.2, except if such supply is detrimental to the supply to the consumer already connected therewith.
3.3.3 ................
3.3.4..................
.
3.3.5 ................
3.3.6.................
.
3.4 Charges for Electricity Supplied 3.4.1 The Distribution Licensee is authorized to recover charges for electricity supplied in accordance with such tariffs as may be fixed from time to time by the Commission:
Provided that in case of distribution of electricity in the same area by two or more Distribution Licensees, the Commission may fix only the maximum ceiling of tariff for retail sale of electricity. 3.4.2 The Distribution Licensee is also authorized to recover such surcharge and charges for wheeling as may be specified under the provisions of sub-section (2) and subsection (3) of Section 42 of the Act and such additional surcharge as may be specified under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 42 of the Act.
9

3.4.3 Unless otherwise specified, all HT and LT charges refer to one point of supply and each separate establishment shall be given separate point of supply.

3.4.4 The charges for electricity supplied under this Regulation 3.4 may include a fixed charge in addition to a charge for actual electricity supplied, in accordance with terms and conditions of tariff as may be specified.

3.4.5 In addition to the charges fixed by the Commission, consumers shall be required to pay all taxes, duties and other statutory charges as may be required under any law for the time being in force.

11. The above provisions makes it amply clear that, the distribution licensee does not give anything free of cost to its consumers. While fixing the 'rate of the electricity per unit' the expenses of generation and transmission and distribution to the doorstep of the consumer is also considered and included. Not only this, the basic infrastructure, plants and machinery, which are required for the supply of the electricity to the consumers are also erected on the money of the consumers. As such, in view of the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, every consumer who pays electricity bill honestly, becomes the consumer of the distribution licensee. There cannot be such a distinction that, he is the consumer only for the supply from supply point onwards and not from generation station to electric plants of distribution and supply lines in generous sense of the matter. Thus, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellants that, the respondent is not their consumer.

10

12. The another submission of Adv.P.S.Mehta for the appellants is that, so far as the damage to the crop and drip irrigation system belonging to the respondent is concerned, the panchanamas drawn by Tahasildar and police are not proper in as much as those are prepared in their absence. Those are prepared without following the due process of law. The panchanamas so prepared were prepared after five days. Those cannot be relied upon. While countering the above submission it is argued by Adv.Barate for the respondent that once the Electrical Inspector held in his report that, the incident of fire took place because of the negligence of the appellants, they are liable to compensate according to the provision of law, and for that purpose they have to assess the loss by preparing proper panchanama. The appellants not discharged their obligation and therefore the revenue authorities performed that task.

13. We agree with the above submissions of the respondent. Once the Electrical Inspector, which is the statutory authority under the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 has after due enquiry found that, there was negligence on the part of the appellants and they kept the overhanging wires curving on the field of the respondent , it was their duty to go and assess the loss due to fire incident. Instead of doing that the appellants are demonstrating that the panchanamas prepared by the revenue authorities and police are belated and it cannot be relied. The record shows that, the panchanamas are properly prepared and those cannot be doubted. There is no reason for us to disbelieve those panchanamas. The District Commission in its impugned judgment relied on them and recorded the finding that the sugarcane crop belonging to respondent was 11 only of 3 months of age, but the drip irrigation system which was entirely burnt in the incident costing him for Rs.5,11,194/- and accordingly granted that compensation after 45 days of the order and in default thereafter the sum will carry interest @8% p.a. In the facts and circumstances discussed above we do not see any unreasonableness or illegality in the above findings of the District Commission. Thus, according to us there is no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment. It is liable to be confirmed. Consequently, the appeal will have to be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal it will be just to direct the appellant to pay to the respondent sum of Rs.10,000/- as the costs of the proceedings. The stay order granted earlier in favour of the appellants will have to be vacated. Hence we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The impugned judgment is hereby confirmed.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The appellants are directed to pay to the respondent sum of Rs.10,000/- as the costs of this proceedings.

4. The stay order granted in favour of the appellants is hereby vacated.

5. The copy of the judgment be furnished to both sides free of cost. 

     Nagesh C.Kumbre                   Milind S.Sonawane
        Member                          Presiding Member