The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has clarified that utilities cannot disconnect electricity supply on grounds of safety without producing contemporaneous documentary evidence. This judgment reinforces the obligation of service providers to substantiate technical claims with verifiable records, particularly when consumer rights are at stake.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose between Bikaner Electricity Supplies Limited (BKESL), represented by its Assistant Engineer (D-2), and Roopchand S/o Ashuram Cast-Prajapat, a 72-year-old resident of Bikaner. The complainant held an electricity connection bearing K. No. 310113005182. He was involved in a pending civil suit titled Narayan Prasad versus Municipal Corporation and Ors. (Civil Suit No. 180/19), where the Civil Judge No. 3, Bikaner, had passed an order on 18.07.2019 in Temporary Injunction Application No. 168/2019 directing both parties to maintain status quo.
Key Facts
- The complainant regularly paid his electricity bills.
- On 29.09.2019, BKESL employees visited his premises and threatened to disconnect the supply.
- On 01.10.2019, the complainant submitted a written application to BKESL, drawing attention to the status quo order and affirming timely bill payments.
- On 09.10.2019, BKESL conducted a site inspection and disconnected the electricity connection.
- On 10.10.2019, the complainant filed an RTI application seeking the reason for disconnection.
- The Public Information Officer directed the Executive Engineer (M&P), Jodhpur Discom, to respond, but no information was furnished to the complainant.
- The complainant alleged that the disconnection was arbitrary and caused him mental agony and physical hardship.
Procedural History
- 18.07.2019: Civil Court ordered status quo in Civil Suit No. 180/19 (T.I. No. 168/2019).
- 09.10.2019: BKESL conducted site inspection and disconnected electricity supply.
- 01.10.2019: Complainant submitted application to BKESL regarding status quo order.
- 10.10.2019: RTI application filed by complainant.
- 04.11.2019: RTI response issued by PIO, but no substantive information provided.
- 2019: Consumer Complaint No. CC/213/2019 filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bikaner.
- 18.03.2021: DCDRC allowed complaint, ordered reconnection and awarded Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 for litigation expenses.
- 26.07.2021: BKESL filed First Appeal No. 193/2021 before Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner.
Relief Sought
The complainant sought: (1) restoration of electricity connection; (2) compensation of Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and physical hardship; (3) reimbursement of Rs. 10,000 for litigation expenses; and (4) any other just relief.
The Parties' Positions
The complainant contended that the disconnection was unlawful, arbitrary, and violated the status quo order. He emphasized that he had no notice, no opportunity to rectify, and no documentation was provided to justify the action.
The appellant (BKESL) contended that the disconnection was necessary under Regulation 13(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010, read with Sections 53 and 173(2)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, because the complainant had illegally shifted the electricity meter to a location posing risk to human and animal safety. It relied on the affidavit of Mr. Rashid Khan, Assistant Engineer, D-2, BKESL.
Procedural History (Continued)
- 18.03.2021: DCDRC order passed.
- 26.07.2021: First Appeal filed.
- 02.06.2026: Judgment delivered by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an electricity utility can lawfully disconnect a consumer’s supply on grounds of alleged safety violation without producing contemporaneous documentary evidence such as inspection reports or photographs, and whether the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shifts to the service provider when the consumer demonstrates regular payment and compliance.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant argued that Regulation 13(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010, empowers the licensee to disconnect supply if the meter is installed in a manner hazardous to life or property. It further relied on Sections 53 and 173(2)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which permit disconnection for safety reasons. It contended that the DCDRC erred in disregarding the affidavit of its official and improperly shifted the burden of proof to the utility under Section 101 of the Evidence Act. It argued that the complainant’s failure to rebut the technical assertion of meter shifting should have been weighed against his lack of evidence.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that the disconnection was arbitrary and punitive, occurring despite his compliance with bill payments and the court’s status quo order. He emphasized that no written notice, inspection report, or photographic evidence was ever provided to him, violating principles of natural justice. He contended that the utility’s reliance on an uncorroborated affidavit, without supporting documentation, was insufficient to justify a drastic measure affecting essential service.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission observed that while the appellant invoked statutory provisions permitting disconnection for safety reasons, it failed to produce any objective, contemporaneous evidence to substantiate its claim. The affidavit of Mr. Rashid Khan, though filed, was not accompanied by inspection reports, photographs, or technical assessments. The DCDRC rightly noted this evidentiary gap, but the Commission found that the lower forum had not adequately examined the applicability of the statutory framework under the Electricity Act and the Safety Regulations.
"The Appellant had not produced any relevant document pertaining to the alleged site inspection, including any inspection report or photographs, in support of its contention that the electricity meter had been shifted to a dangerous location."
The Commission held that the absence of such documentation rendered the utility’s defense legally insufficient. However, it also noted that the complainant had not presented any rebuttal evidence regarding the meter’s location or condition. The factual dispute - whether the meter was indeed relocated to a hazardous position - could not be resolved on the current record.
The Commission emphasized that while the burden of proving deficiency lies with the complainant under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, once a prima facie case of arbitrary disconnection is made (evidenced by regular payment and lack of notice), the service provider must substantiate its justification with credible, verifiable evidence. The utility’s reliance on oral testimony alone, without technical documentation, falls short of the standard required under safety regulations.
The Commission further held that both parties were denied a fair opportunity to lead evidence on the technical aspects of the meter’s installation. The matter involved factual and technical complexities requiring expert input and documentary corroboration, which neither forum had adequately addressed.
The Verdict
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bikaner, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the DCDRC, Bikaner, for fresh adjudication. The parties are directed to appear before the DCDRC on 24.06.2026. The DCDRC shall provide both parties a full opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence, including technical reports and photographs, and shall decide the complaint afresh within three months of the date of appearance. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Documentary Evidence Is Mandatory for Safety-Based Disconnections
- Practitioners must now insist that utilities produce inspection reports, photographs, and technical assessments before any disconnection on safety grounds.
- Oral affidavits alone are insufficient to discharge the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act when statutory safety provisions are invoked.
Consumers Can Challenge Disconnections Without Prior Notice
- Even if a utility claims statutory authority, failure to issue notice or provide opportunity to rectify constitutes deficiency in service.
- Regular payment of bills and compliance with court orders strengthen the consumer’s prima facie case.
Consumer Forums Must Apply Statutory Frameworks Correctly
- Forums must examine whether the utility’s action aligns with specific provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Safety Regulations, not merely rely on general assertions.
- Failure to apply statutory provisions constitutes legal error warranting remand.
