ELECTRICITY
SECTOR & CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Delay in
granting the electricity services amounts to deficiency in services
Not supplying
electricity to the commercial entity is deficiency in service
under
CPA, 1986
As per
official statistics and reports, India has a national electricity grid with
a capacity of
357.875 GW. In the period from 2017-18, the gross electricity
consumption
was 1149 kWh per capita. Increasing population and
government
policies aimed at increasing the number of electricity connections
in India,
such as the DDUGJY mean that the number of people who require
electricity
will rise rapidly
CONSUMER
ISSUES
The National
Electricity Policy, 2005 and the National Electricity Plan,
2018 lay out the
common grievances of consumers with regards to the
electricity
sector which have been listed out in a report
1. Delay in
sanctioning of a new connection.
2. Problems
in supply of electricity.
3. Erratic
voltage fluctuations.
4. Delay in
repairs and restoration of power supply.
5. Delay in
reconnection following disconnection.
6. Delay in
shifting of connection lines.
7. Problems
in the electricity meter.
CERC AND
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
The
Electricity Act, 2003 provided for the establishment of the Central
Electric
Authority and the Central Electric Regulatory Commission for
the
regulation and management of electricity services. It has passed numerous regulations
on cross-border trade, tariff rates, inter-state transmission of electricity,
power supply and amended them periodically in order to address problems face by
consumers.
For the
purpose of addressing consumer concerns, an Electricity Ombudsman shall be
appointed by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission which shall be
established by every state government.124 In addition, appeals against the
order passed by the Central and State Electricity Regulatory Commissions shall
be heard by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.
CASES
Delay in granting the electricity services amounts to deficiency
in services
Tukaram v.
The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution
Company Limited and Ors
Facts: Appellant
applied for electricity connection on his land to Respondent
and deposited
charges. The Respondent raised a bill for consumption charges. The Appellant
claimed that no electricity connection had been installed. Appellant filed a
consumer complaint before the Consumer Forum. The District Forum allowed the
complaint and grated compensation. In appeal, the State Commission reversed the
order of the District Forum. When the Appellant carried the matter to the
National Commission, the revision was initially dismissed. However, the
Appellant filed a review petition. The Review Petition was allowed and
compensation was awarded to the Appellant. Appellant preferred a present appeal
for enhancement of compensation.
Issue: Whether
Appellant entitled for enhancement of compensation?
Decision: Supreme Court
while allowing the appeal held that the grant of
compensation
by the National Commission would not be adequate to meet
the requirement
of just and fair compensation to a consumer who had suffered as a consequence
of the default of the Respondent and enhance the compensation to an amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- which shall be paid over within a period of four weeks from
today. In default, the compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per
cent per annum. Observing that the Appellant had suffered hardship and
inconvenience as a result of an unexplained delay of one decade on the part of
the Respondent (s) in granting an electricity connection.
Not supplying electricity to the commercial entity is deficiency
in service
under CPA, 1986
Sheetla
Granite Daharra Kabrai through its Partner, Shri Shiv Vihala
Shivhare
Mohaba v. Dakshinanchal Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through
its Executive
Engtineer
Facts: The
Complainant had taken an electric connection of 130 KVA in
the year
2013. The Complainant had been regularly paying the bills. It is
stated that after a long gap of four years, the
OP sent a demand notice vide letter No. 3752 dated 22.12.2017 for Rs.
37,25,673/-, wherein it wasmentioned that the previous bills were on the basis
of MF-2 instead ofMF - 4. So, the difference amount as mentioned above was
demanded. Being aggrieved by the act of demanding dues after two years, which
was against Sec. 56 (2) of Electricity Act, 2003, the Complainant filed a
complaint in the State Commission.
State commission dismissed the complaint with the following
observation:
The electric connection in question has been obtained by it for
commercial
purpose to run machine for crushing stones. As such the
Complainant is not
a consumer as defined in Section (2)(1)(d) of the Consumer
Protection Act,
1986. It has not been stated in complaint that the business of
crushing of
rocks through machine has been started for the purpose of earning
livelihood by means of self employment. As such the explanation of Section 2(1)
(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable on Complainant in view
of averments made in complaint. Being aggrieved by the order of the State
Commission, the Complainant has filed the present First Appeal at NCDRC.
Issue: Whether complainant is a consumer under the Sec. 2 (1)(d) of the
consumer protection act?
Decision: It is seen that the Complainant is not a
consumer. The
Complainant, being a firm having partners and doing the job of
crushing of
rocks through a machine cannot be taken to be self-employed and
doing it
for livelihood. The Consumer Protect Act, 1986 specifically only
excludes
persons who buy goods exclusively for the purpose of earning their
livelihood, by means of self-employment. In the present matter, electricity was
taken from the OP to run the machine for crushing the rocks. The firm was run
to procure profit. This prima facie shows that the Complainant was undertaking a
commercial activity. Hence, court hold that the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’
as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Posts
0 Comments