##PAGE1##

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.

J U D G M E N T

(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.

3

3. 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