Compensation Covers Actual And Expected Losses Along With Physical And Emotional Suffering: NCDRC Holds Chattisgarh State Electricity Board Liable For Deficiency In Service

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the quantum of compensation should be based on the facts and circumstances of each case and it should also cover physical and emotional suffering. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant established a unit in 2012, purchasing machines under a bank's observation, with a term loan amount of Rs. 11,00,000. The unit required electricity, and the complainant obtained a no-objection certificate from Chhattisgarh Electricity Distribution Company Ltd./Electricity Company. Before the loan approval, the complainant paid Rs. 37,594 to the Electricity company as a demand notice amount, with a promise of receiving an electricity connection within one to two months. The complainant signed an agreement on stamp paper, but the Electricity company did not provide the connection even after payment. Despite paying Rs. 37,594 to the C.G. State Electricity company for a demand notice, the promised electricity connection was delayed by two years, causing significant hardship and financial burden. The complainant filed a case in the district forum, which awarded Rs. 50,000 in compensation and Rs. 5,000 in litigation costs. The complainant then appealed to the State Commission, which increased the compensation for mental agony to Rs. 1,00,000, maintaining the litigation cost award. Aggrieved by the State Commission's order, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission. Contentions of the Opposite Party The electricity company argued that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, as the electricity connection was for running a commercial spice manufacturing unit. Furthermore, the loan appraisal indicated the employment of multiple workers, showing it was not for self-employment. Additionally, the complainant failed to inform the electricity company about the completion of internal wiring, causing delays. The electricity company also claimed the complainant did not meet all parameters under the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code, 2011, for timely connection and that monthly loan payments to the bank were not grounds for compensation. Observations by the National Commission The National Commission observed that the main issue was the compensation amount, with the District Forum awarding Rs. 50,000 for deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs, which the State Commission increased to Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony in addition to the Rs. 5,000. The complainant sought a total of Rs. 13 lakh for the deficiency, claiming the delay in receiving the electricity connection caused a significant loss. The complainant argued the electric connection was applied for but only granted much later, forcing the unit to run on a diesel pump. The electricity company contended the internal wiring was completed much later and that the delay was only seven months, not two years. In the cases of Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 16 SCC 512 and Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital (2000) 7 SCC 668, the Supreme Court held that compensation includes actual and expected losses, physical and emotional suffering, and that Consumer Forums should aim to change the service provider's attitude while awarding fair and reasonable compensation based on case specifics. Furthermore, in Suneja Towers (P) Ltd. v. Anita Merchant (2023) 9 SCC 194, it was established that the quantum of compensation should be based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Considering these precedents, the commission found the compensation granted by the District Forum and State Commission insufficient. The commission highlighted that the complainant experienced significant losses and mental anguish due to the electricity company's delays. Thus, the commission set aside the State Commission's order and decided that a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to be appropriate. Case Title: Anirudh Kumar Gupta Vs. Junior Engineer, C.G. State Electricity Distribution Co. & Anr. Case Number: R.P. No. 2965/2017Click Here To Read/Download Order

Compensation Covers Actual And Expected Losses Along With Physical And Emotional Suffering: NCDRC Holds Chattisgarh State Electricity Board Liable For Deficiency In Service

Ayushi Rani

Tags