4 min readNew DelhiJun 11, 2026 04:36 PM IST
First published on: Jun 11, 2026 at 04:20 PM IST
The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an electricity distribution company to pay Rs 20,000 compensation over losses to a farmer whose power supply remained disrupted despite the company’s knowledge of the problem. The court held that it was the utility’s responsibility to restore the connection.
The bench of Justice Sunita Yadav (president) and Monika Malik (member) noted that the electricity company had, in a letter, appeared to indicate its intention of providing relief to the complainant, but no further action seems to have been taken.
“Not only that, the electricity company, before the district commission, submitted that they gained knowledge regarding the disruption of electricity supply only after receiving notice from the district commission, which suggests their ignorance at the same time,” the commission said on June 10.
‘Power company’s responsibility’
- The electricity company had written a letter in January 2015 to the forest department, thus they were fully aware of the fact that the electricity supply had been disrupted, and only the electricity company can restore power supply to the premises of the complainant, the consumer commission noted.
- Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, we find that the district commission has rightly directed payment of Rs 20,000 as compensation to the complainant with costs, it added.
- The state consumer body also set aside the district consumer commission’s earlier order directing a refund of Rs 2.04 lakh, which the man had deposited to the electricity company as a connection charge.
Case of disrupted electricity supply
- The plea was filed by MP Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Company Ltd, challenging a 2016 district consumer commission order which directed that electricity supply be ensured to the complainant’s premises within 15 days.
- It was directed that if any other government department is causing any obstruction in providing the electricity, the opposite parties (complainant) shall contact the higher authorities of that department and ensure the removal of such obstruction.
- The matter arose when the complainant had submitted an application to the electricity company under the ‘New Pump Connection Subsidy Scheme’ for obtaining an electricity connection and installation of a distribution panel (DP) on his agricultural land.
- It was further submitted that in compliance with the directions of the electricity company, the complainant deposited Rs 2.04 lakh in the office of the electricity company.
- The allegation was that the opposite party erected electric poles in the complainant’s field, but neither was electricity provided nor was the DP installed, because of which the complainant suffered loss in agricultural work.
- After that, the complainant moved the district commission seeking relief.
Power company’s stand
The electricity company, in its reply before the district commission, resisted the complaint and submitted that a transformer had been installed in the field of the complainant and electric poles had also been erected in the field.
It was submitted that the electricity supply was started, after which electricity bills were also issued to the complainant.
Later, after filing of the complaint, an inspection was conducted, and it was found that the electricity connection in the premises of the complainant was disrupted by the forest department, and the complainant had kept the said DP in his house.
The counsel for the electricity company argued that they had diligently performed their duty regarding the installation of DP by erecting poles and by joining the poles with electricity wires to provide a new electricity connection.
‘District panel rightly passed order’
The counsel for the complainant supported the order and argued that it was the responsibility of the electricity company to restore the power supply after knowing that the same was disrupted.
The district commission has, therefore, rightly passed the order, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The electricity company, in its reply, submitted that a transformer had been installed in the field of the complainant and electric poles had also been erected. (AI-generated image) 
Share
