“Public Utility Providers Must Act With Greater Responsibility”: Delhi Consumer Commission Holds MVVNL Liable For Delay In Providing Electricity Connection
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), held Madhanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (MVVNL) liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide electricity infrastructure despite receiving full payment from the complainant. The Commission allowed the complaint and ordered the immediate installation of the required equipment without delay.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Mukesh Kumar, applied online on 19-07-2024 for a “Private Tube Well” electricity connection with Madhanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd(Opposite Party) for supplying electricity to his certified borewell situated on his agricultural land, paying a processing fee of Rs.100.
Following a site inspection, the OPs generated an estimate for the required infrastructure, including transformers, poles, and wires. To secure irrigation for his upcoming Rabi crop, the complainant paid the entire estimated amount of Rs.1,83,092 on 13-08-2024.
After submitting his final application for permanent electricity supply on 18-08-2024, the complainant was assigned serial number 3273 and discovered that more than 500 applicants were ahead of him in the queue for the required infrastructure. The complainant alleged that the OPs had collected the full cost of the equipment without disclosing that the necessary materials were unavailable or that installation would be delayed. At the same time, the OPs prohibited him from independently purchasing the required equipment from the open market.
The complainant further alleged that he was kept in the dark regarding the transformer stock position and other details, such as the products' models and quality, despite being provided with detailed estimates, and that the delay was unrealistic and unreasonable.
Due to the failure to install the electricity connection, the complainant was compelled to use a costly 10 HP diesel generator to irrigate his wheat crop, resulting in increased expenses and environmental pollution. The complainant also stated that the delay adversely affected agricultural productivity and jeopardised future cultivation.
Aggrieved by the failure of the OP to provide the assured service even after collecting the entire amount from him, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District) seeking refund and compensation.
The Opposite Parties (OPs) failed to appear or contest the matter despite receiving due notice, leading the Commission to proceed ex-parte.
Observations & Decision
The Commission observed that it was undisputed that the complainant had deposited the entire amount of Rs. 1,83,092. The Commission held that once the full consideration had been received, the OPs were under a contractual obligation to complete the installation work within a reasonable period.
Relying on Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, the Commission observed that failure of a public authority to perform its duty after accepting consideration amounts to deficiency in service.
The Commission further found that the OPs had misrepresented the complainant by demanding and collecting the entire payment without disclosing material facts to the complainant. It noted that the OPs failed to disclose the non-availability of stock, the expected timelines for delivery, and the existence of a long waiting queue for the deliverables. The Commission held that collecting full payment while keeping a consumer waiting indefinitely for internal procurement issues was violative of consumer rights.
The Commission also took note of the hardship caused to the complainant due to the delay. It observed that the complainant had to rely on diesel generators for irrigation, leading to financial burden, reduced agricultural productivity and environmental harm. The Commission further observed that public utility service providers are expected to act with greater responsibility and sensitivity.
Accordingly, the Commission found the OPs liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide the assured service even after accepting complete payment. It allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to supply the required infrastructure, within 45 days, failing which they would be liable to pay Rs. 1,000 per day as penalty. The Commission also ordered the OPs to jointly and severally pay Rs. 75,000 as compensation to the complainant within the same period.
Case Title: Sh. Mukesh Kumar vs M/s Madhanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (MVVNL)
CC No:DC/80/CC/437/2024