1.      This Revision Petition No.3342 of 2017 challenges the order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘State Commission’) dated 29.07.2017. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 130 of 2017 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (‘District Forum’) dated 16.12.2016 wherein the District Forum, dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner.

2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant, are that he, along with his family, resides in Purana Kachari, Kawardha, and is a consumer of the Electricity Distribution Company, Kawardha. Opposite Party (OP) No. 1 functions for Kabirdham District, and OP-2 functions in Kabirdham District in power distribution centre, carrying out construction works for power distribution. On 14.02.2015, Kunal alias Suraj, aged 9 years, was seriously injured due to electric current while flying a kite on the roof of their house, which is under an LT line.  The Complainant alleged that the LT line was improperly managed, passing over the roof of their house. The Electricity Department, despite complaints by the Complainant and other residents, the LT line was not removed. The electrocution resulted in 35% burns on Kunal's body, requiring extensive medical treatment from 14.02.2015 to 02.04.2015, costing Rs.10 Lakhs. His son still requires medical treatment, causing further financial and emotional distress to the family. He sent a legal notice dated 28.07.2015 demanding compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs, but received no response. Being aggrieved, he filed a consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

3.      In their reply before the District Forum, the Respondents contended that the Complainant does not fall under the definition of a consumer under Section 12(d) of the Act, and hence the complaint should be dismissed. They argued that the District Forum does not have jurisdiction over this matter as the complaint is of a civil nature requiring detailed evidence, which cannot be adequately handled by the Consumer Forum where only affidavits are filed as evidence.

4.      The District Forum, vide order dated 16.12.2016 dismissed the complaint with the following directions:

“In light of the foregoing discussion, the complainant/ applicant has failed to prove considerable question no.4 and therefore the complainant/applicant is not entitled to the desired reliefs. Consequently, the complaint of the complainant is hereby rejected/dismissed.  It does not seem appropriate to get compensation from the complainant to the opposite party because the opposite party itself is a party in present case.  Each party shall bear the costs of litigation.”                                 (Extracted from translated copy)

5.      On Appeal, the learned State Commission, vide the order dated 29.07.2017 affirmed the District Forum order dated 16.12.2016 with reasons as below:

“...

  The respondents/opposite parties have submitted document NA-1 to NA-3 in support of their averment which prove that the electricity line is existing at the alleged site since 1975.  The Respondents/Opposite Parties have tried to state by referring to Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 that the appellant/complainant has not obtained necessary permission for the construction of the house.  In this regard, Rule 82 of the said Act is quoted herein below:

“82. Erection of or alternation to buildings, structures, flood banks and elevation of roads.-

(1) If at any time subsequent to the erection of an overhead line (whether covered with insulating material or bare), any person proposes to erect a new building or structure or flood bank or to raise any road level or to carry out any other type of work whether permanent or temporary or to make in or upon any building or structure of flood bank or road, any permanent or temporary addition or alternation, he and the contractor whom he employs to carry out the erection, addition or alteration, shall if such work, building. structure, flood bank, road or additions and alterations, thereto, would, during or after the construction result in contravention of any of the provisions of rule 77, 79 оr 80, give notice in writing of his intention to the supplier and to the Inspector and shall furnish therewith a scale drawing showing the proposed building, structure, flood bank road, any addition or alteration and scaffolding required during the construction.

(2) (a) …………..

(b) ……………….

(3) No work upon such building, structure, flood bank, road and addition or alternation thereto shall be commenced or continued until the Inspector has certified that the provisions of rule 77, 79 or 80 are not likely to be contravened either during or after the aforesaid construction:

Provided that the Inspector may, if he is satisfied that the overhead line has been so guarded as to secure the protection of persons or property from injury, or risk of injury, permit the work to be executed prior to the alteration of the overhead line or in the case of temporary addition or alteration, without alteration of the overhead line.

(4) On receipt of the deposit, the supplier shall alter the overhead line within one month of the date of deposit or within such longer period as the Inspector may allow and ensure that it shall not contravene the provisions of rule 77, 79 or 80 either during or after such construction."

   According to the above, if the appellant/complainant had constructed the house or made changes in the building, then he should have given written information to the respondent/opposite party before the said construction. It has been clarified in the said section that no alterations or additions to the building shall be started or continued until the Inspector inspects the site and satisfied himself. It is not proved that the appellant/complainant had informed the respondents/opposite party in writing about the construction of the building.  Therefore, it is proved that no act of deficiency in service has been caused by the Respondents/Opposite Party in laying the LT line and in such a situation only on the ground that the son of the Appellant/Complainant is electrocuted. The Appellant/ Complainant does not become entitled to get compensation from the Respondents/Opposite Party.  The order passed by the District Forum is completely legal and suffers from no irregularity or legality.  Consequently, there is no need to interfere in the impugned order.

16.      The appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed.  The impugned order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the District Forum is hereby confirmed.  In the Circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their own cost.”

         (Extracted from translated copy)

6.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant reiterated the averments in the Complaint, Memo of Appeal and the grounds advanced in the instant Revision Petition. He sought to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the Fora below.

7.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents argued in favour of concurrent findings of both the Fora and contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in electrocuting the complainant. He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs.

8.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the both the learned fora, and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

9.      The learned District Forum passed a detailed and well reasoned order based on evidence on record and the arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the entire pleadings and arguments, had determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order and passed a well-reasoned order. There are no new grounds that have been brought out by the Petitioner so as to warrant interference with the concurrent findings in the case.

10.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. From the facts stated, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order of the learned State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Act. In this regard, I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

11.    Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as regards revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12.    Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

13.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.

14.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

15.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.