MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, RURAL DIVISONversusSHRI. PANDURANG BHIKAJI KORALE AND ORS

                                                                        31-WP-11033-2011 @.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 11033 OF 2011

                   Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution                ...Petitioner
                   Company Limited, Rural Division
                                   Versus
                   1. Pandurang Bhikaji Korale
                   2. Harish Mahadu Korale
SNEHA              3. Namdev Bhikaji Korale
NITIN
CHAVAN             4. Consumer Grievance Redressal
                   Forum (CGRF), Nashik                                      ...Respondents
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2026.06.23
10:33:43 +0530                                      ****
                   Mr. Rahul Sinha a/w Soham Bhalerao i/b DSK Legal for the Petitioner.
                   Mr. Vidhyesh Nashikkar, (through VC) for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
                                                    ****

                                                 CORAM :      M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                   DATE :     22nd JUNE, 2026
                   P.C. :


                   1.             This petition is filed by an Electricity Distribution Company
                   challenging an order dated 06.09.2011 passed by Respondent No. 4 -
                   The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (‘the Forum’ for short), in
                   Grievance/complaint filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. By the said
                   impugned order, the Forum has directed the Petitioner to pay
                   Rs.24,000/- as compensation to only Respondent No. 3. So far as other
                   complainants - Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, it is directed
                   that if they are found connected to Transformer No. 4269468 (‘the
                   Transformer in question’ for short), then similar compensation is
                   directed to be paid to them also.


                   2.             It is necessary to note at this stage itself that according to
                   learned counsel for Petitioner after impugned order, when its officers


                   Sneha Chavan                                                                  1
                                                  31-WP-11033-2011 @.doc



went for necessary inspection in respect of connection of Respondent
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, neither electric motor nor meter box was
found and it was informed that the concerned consumers had taken the
meter box at home. It is further submitted that the concerned persons
have refused to sign on the statements. Therefore, this petition is
restricted to the order of compensation payable to Respondent No.3.


3.             The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed the complaint contending
inter alia that they are the consumers to whom electricity is connected
through the Transformer in question and they are consumers of
Pimpalgaon, Dhum Taluka- Dindori. That on 25.02.2011, electricity
stopped due to failure of the Transformer in question and as such they
could not irrigate their crops. That complaint was made on the same
day. That the Secretary of the Consumer Association filed complaint on
08.03.2011 and another application was made to Nasik Office on
17.03.2011. That the Transformer in question was repaired restoring
regular electricity on 28.03.2011. That therefore from 25.02.2011 till
28.03.2011 the electricity connection was disrupted resulting into loss
and therefore, compensation is claimed @ Rs.1,200/- per day for 31
days.
4.             The Petitioner appeared before the Forum and resisted the
complaint by raising following contentions. That the electricity supply
was disconnected due to transformer failure on 03.03.2011 and it was
replaced on 18.03.2011 according to availability. However, the changed
transformer again failed on 22.03.2011 and was replaced on
26.03.2011. That since electricity pumps on the adjoining transformer
bearing No. 4269417 (‘the other Transformer’ for short) was illegally
shifted on the Transformer in question, it was overloaded. That the
consumers on the Transformer in question have not done proper


Sneha Chavan                                                               2
                                                     31-WP-11033-2011 @.doc



earthing and capacitors are not fitted to the motors thereby creating
additional load which has resulted into its failure. It was specifically
contented that out of Respondent Nos.1 to 3, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
have not been supplied electricity officially from the Transformer in
question, but, they are officially connected to the other Transformer. It
was further contented that none of the Respondents have reported any
loss of crop to concerned Tahsildar/Talathi and no such panchanama or
report is on record and therefore the alleged case of compensation
should not be granted.
5.             The Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (‘IGRC’) heard the
matter and gave decision that compensation cannot be granted because
its responsibility cannot be fixed on a particular officer and the
inconvenience caused by delay in restoring transformer is well known
and the present case does not call for an order of compensation.
6.             The Forum after considering the rival submissions and on
appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that compensation of
Rs.24,000/- is payable to Respondent No. 3. This compensation is
granted for non compliance with the timeline under Maharashtra
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of
Distribution Licensees, Period for Giving Supply and Determination of
Compensation) Regulations, 2005 (‘the said SOP’ for short). The
compensation is paid under clause 12 of the said SOP.


7.             Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the facts of
the present case are peculiar inasmuch as the failure of the Transformer
in question was due to circumstances beyond the control of the
Petitioner as the concerned consumers had overloaded the Transformer
and two of the complainants are not even officially connected to the
Transformer in question. He contended that after the complaint was


Sneha Chavan                                                                  3
                                                31-WP-11033-2011 @.doc



filed, when inspection was taken, it was found that none of the
Respondents/complainants had proper capacitor connected to their
motors and there was no earthing. He submitted that all the
Respondents/complainants have signed on the report recording said
situation. He contented that the Rules require usage of proper
electricity equipment including motors. He further submitted that the
Engineer appointed by the said Forum as a third person expert has
submitted a report that because of the rains and muddy situation near
the Transformer in question, he could not actually visit the place and
therefore, he has only enquired with Sarpanch, complainants and
villagers present. He submitted that in such situation, there was not
sufficient evidence to decide that there was failure to comply with said
SOP and this was not a fit case for granting compensation.


8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents
submitted that the case of overload as well as two complainants not
being connected to the Transformer in question, is nothing but an
afterthought and mere allegations. That there is nothing to establish the
same. He submitted that in any case the Petitioner company has
sufficient manpower and machinery to take action for any violation of
Rules about use of electricity and therefore, it cannot be said that
overload of a Transformer or allegation that two complainants not
officially connected to the Transformer, cannot be said to be an
occurrence beyond the control of the Petitioner. He submitted that
therefore, exemption Clause No. 11 of the said SOP will not apply to the
facts of this case. Relying on SOP No. 6.3, it is contented that the
Petitioner was duty bound to restore electricity supply caused by the
failure of the Transformer in question within 48 hours from the receipt
of complaint. Relying on SOP No.12.1, he contented that therefore the


Sneha Chavan                                                             4
                                                    31-WP-11033-2011 @.doc



Petitioner has failed to meet the standards of performance and
therefore, compensation was rightly determined by the Forum.                     He
submitted that the report of the experienced wireman of the Petitioner
is on record, which does not support the case of the Petitioner about the
allegations of illegal connections or its overload. He further submitted
that Managing the affairs of the electricity company about overload and
illegal connections is neither concern of the consumer, nor the same is
within his control and therefore reasons such as overload and illegal
connections cannot be argued against the consumer by Petitioner.
9.             Record shows that Petitioner has deposited amount of Rs.
24,000/- in this Court on 12.10.2012. Learned counsel for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 submits that he has no instructions about withdrawal of the
said amount by Respondents.


10.            Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the
record, in my view the said Forum was not justified in granting
compensation to Respondent No. 3, for reasons given below.


11.            At the outset, it is necessary to note that a clear stand was
taken by the Petitioner before the Forum that the Transformer in
question was overloaded because of the illegal connections of the other
transformer. It was also specifically contented that Respondent No. 1
and Respondent No.2 are officially connected to the other Transformer
and not the Transformer in question.
12.            Learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has, in fact,
come to the conclusion that it will have to be verified whether
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could be granted compensation and therefore
under clause 2 of the impugned order, it is directed that ‘if Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are found to have been given connection from the


Sneha Chavan                                                                 5
                                                     31-WP-11033-2011 @.doc



Transformer in question’ they may be paid compensation. Therefore,
one thing is clear that the Forum did not have sufficient material to
overrule the contention of the Petitioner that other illegal connections
are made to the Transformer in question, including that of Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2. It is material to note that Petitioner has produced copies
of Consumer Personal Ledgers of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, which clearly
show that Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are not given connection through the
Transformer in question.


13.            In such circumstances, let us see if the material on record was
sufficient to order compensation.


14.            Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has shown the Court a
Checking         Report   dated   15.04.2011    which    is    signed             by   the
Respondents / complainants. The report clearly records that none of
the Respondents had a capacitor connected to their electric devices and
not only the Respondents / complainants but many other persons whose
electricity connection is given through the Transformer in question, do
not have capacitor connected. Regulation No.5.9 of the Maharashtra
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and other
Conditions of Supply) Regulations 2005 is brought to the notice of the
Court. Said Regulation mandates that all connections released for
‘agricultural pump set’ shall be metered and no such connection shall be
released unless such pump sets are provided with capacitors of suitable
ratings. If the Agricultural pump sets/motors have capacitors at the time
of release of connection but they are not maintained thereafter during
the time of use by concerned consumers (agriculturists) thereby
resulting in transformers getting overloaded, such consumers cannot be
said to be entitled to compensation. Respondents were not using electric


Sneha Chavan                                                                  6
                                                     31-WP-11033-2011 @.doc



devices or motors in accordance with scientific requirements which are
part of the Regulations.
15.            The case of overload of the Transformer in question was
clearly pleaded before the Forum. In this respect, the report of the
Engineer appointed by Forum is necessary to be seen. It is noted from
paragraph 6 of the impugned order, that the Forum was conscious of the
fact that the appointed Engineer reported that because of the rain and
muddy situations, he could not visit the place. It was also reported that
all the Respondents are related to each other having joint family and
therefore, they are using the same connection of 15 HP capacity.
16.            The concerned wireman who has given statement, has only
stated that he checked the concerned transformer on 03.03.2011 and a
transformer was made available on 18.03.2011 which was connected,
however, the electricity was not restored therefore, again report was
given and thereafter in 5-6 days a transformer was made available
which was connected. This statement does not indicate anything about
overload or the case of illegal connections to the Transformer in
question.
17.            It is important to note that the Respondent/complainants have
been reported to be related to each other using the same electricity
connection. This assumes importance because Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
were not conclusively found by the Forum to have been connected to
the Transformer in question. If all the three complainants are using
electricity from the same connection, there is sufficient indication of the
Transformer in question being overloaded.
18.            Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also invited the Court’s
attention to specific letters dated 18.04.2011 issued to the Respondents
asking for explanation/report for not using capacitor and in some cases
using motor of higher capacity than the sanctioned load. Nothing is


Sneha Chavan                                                                  7
                                                      31-WP-11033-2011 @.doc



shown to the Court that these letters were responded.
19.            In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there was no
conclusive evidence before the Tribunal to arrive at a finding that there
is breach of time-line under SOP in the teeth of circumstances pointed
out above.
20.            The Forum has concluded that this is not a case where the
occurrence is beyond the control of the Petitioner as per SOP 11.1.
However considering the overall facts and circumstances narrated
above, factual aspects having material bearing on the overload of
Transformer in question as well as its illegal use by Respondent Nos.1
and 2 ought to have been considered. The evidence on record does not
appear to be sufficient to support conclusion of circumstances beyond
the control of Petitioner.
21.            In that view of the matter, the petition partly succeeds. Clause
1 of the impugned order dated 06.09.2011 directing payment of
compensation to Respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside. The
amount deposited by Petitioner pursuant to earlier order of this Court,
is permitted to be withdrawn by the Petitioner along with accrued
interest, if any.
22.            Writ Petition is partly allowed and Rule is made absolute in
above terms. No order as to costs.
23.            All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.


                                              (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Sneha Chavan                                                                   8