MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD vs GOKUL FULCHAND LANGADEWALE ALIAS LODHI

THIS appeal filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDC)/org. opposite party is directed against the order dated 5. 1. 2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No. 326/06. The Forum below partly allowed the complaint and quashed the electricity bills. The Forum below awarded Rs. 2,000 to the complainant for mental pain and agony and Rs. 1,000 for cost of litigation. The MSEDC has taken exception to this order and has come up in appeal. We heard Advocate S. S. Kalekar for the appellant (Org. opp. partly) and Advocate P. Dhoble Patil for the respondent (Org. complainant ). 1. The complainant is an Agriculturist. He owns landed property within the local limits of Wangi, Distt. Solapur. He has taken electric connection for his landed property. He used electricity to water his crops. However, he could not pay the electricity bills regularly. He was in arrears. He apprehended disconnection on account of non-payment of arrears.

THE State of Maharashtra taking into consideration the plight of poor agriculturists declared a benevolent scheme known as Krishi Sanjivani. As per the said scheme, if part of arrears is paid within stipulated time, the rest of the arrears is waived. The MSEDC asked the complainant to pay Rs. 15,645 on or before 31. 3. 2005. The complainant informed the MSEDC that he would participate in the scheme declared by the State of Maharashtra and accordingly he paid Rs. 8,075 on 16. 3. 2005. He paid balance amount of Rs. 7,645 on 31. 3. 2005. As per Krishi Sanjivani Scheme, the complainant paid Rs. 15,645. Therefore, he was to get benefits of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme. MSEDC, however, deprived poor agriculturist of all the benefits of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme and slapped a bill of Rs. 36,800 on him. In addition, threat of disconnection was also given to the complainant. The complainant, therefore, approached Consumer Forum. The complainant alleged in his complaint that MSEDC committed deficiency in service by not extending the benefits of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme in spite of entitlement. MSEDC filed written statement and resisted the complaint of the complainant. MSEDC contended in the written statement that the complainant was not eligible to get benefits of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme on account of his failure to pay reconnection charges of Rs. 75. MSEDC specifically denied to have committed deficiency in service. The Forum below allowed the complaint and passed impugned order, which is under challenge. From the perusal of the record, it is clearly seen that the complainant was to pay Rs. 15,645 on or before dated 31. 3. 2005 in order to get benefit of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme. The complainant paid Rs. 15,645 in two instalments, on or before dated 31. 3. 2005. He paid Rs. 8,075 on 16. 3. 2005 and remaining amount to the tune of Rs. 7,645 on 31. 3. 2005. Both the receipts are placed on record to show that the complainant was entitled to get benefits of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme. The arrears to the extent of Rs. 15,645 were paid by the complainant on or before 31. 3. 2005. Therefore, the complainant was very much entitled to get benefits of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme.

The demand for reconnection charges to the tune of Rs. 75 is a lame excuse to deny the benefits of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme to the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that electric supply was disconnected prior to 31. 3. 2005. If, supply of electricity is disconnected then only question of payment of reconnection charges arises. In this particular case, there was no disconnection of electricity, therefore a question of payment of reconnection charges did not arise at all. The demand of reconnection charges to the tune of Rs. 75 is a calculated move on the part of MSEDC to suppress the serious lapse committed by concerned officer of MSEDC. The demand letter dated 16. 3. 2005 was not placed before the Forum below, when full fledged inquiry was made by the Forum below. This demand letter dated 16. 3. 2005 is first time brought on record with the appeal memo. There is no outward number on demand letter dated 16. 3. 2005. The demand letter appears to be a spurious document. The complainant was very much eligible to get benefits of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme. He paid Rs. 15,645 before cut-off date. The complainant was very much prompt in matter of compliance of conditions of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme. He was very much eager to take benefits of the benevolent scheme of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme introduced by State of Maharashtra. But, unfortunately the complainant, who is a poor agriculturist, was denied the benefits of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme for no default of his. The MSEDC failed to implement the Krishi Sanjivani Scheme, which was meant for Agriculturists. The matter does not rest here. After denying the benefits of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme, MSEDC slapped a bill of Rs. 36,800 and made the complainant helpless. This is a classic example of serious deficiency in the matter of rendering service. The whole purpose of Krishi Sanjivani Scheme is frustrated by obstructive attitude of the officers of MSEDC. This case illustrates how and in the manner public authority can harass a poor agriculturist and said behaviour on the part of public authority can degenerate into store house of inaction breeding to corruption. The State of Maharashtra is, therefore, requested to see as to how and in what manner the benevolent scheme meant for poor agriculturists is implemented. The success of such benevolent scheme depends upon proper and efficient implementation. It is duty of Government to see as to whether benevolent scheme declared by it is properly implemented and as to whether the benefits are percolated to the desired destination.

THE complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of MSEDC. The Forum below therefore, rightly allowed the complaint and passed impugned order. Impugned order passed by the Forum below does not at all suffer from any illegality. Appeal filed by the appellant is without any merits. In the result, we pass following order: order 1. Appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000 to be paid to the respondent. 2. M. A. No. 254/07 stands disposed of. 3. Pronounced and dictated in open Court. 4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. Copy also be sent to the Chairman, MSEDC, Hon''ble Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra and Hon''ble Minister, Energy Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

Appeal dismissed.