Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member :

          This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 17.4.2009 passed in the consumer complaint No. 153/2007 Madansingh Jaisingh Pardeshi V/s Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State Electric Distributors Co.Ltd. & Anrs.  passed by Nasik Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik.  It is alleged on behalf of the respondent (original complainant that on 11.4.2007, the transformer situated near a field of the complainant caught fire and as result of which fruit bearing trees standing near to it, the wheat crop, irrigation pipe line and electric motor pump were burnt and sustained damage.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponent, the consumer complaint was filed.  It my be pointed out that the  opponents were ‘Chief Engineer’ and ‘the Assistant Engineer’ of Maharashtra State Electric Distributors Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Company) in Division Nashik.  The Forum upholding the case of the complainant, directed the opponents’s officials to pay the compensation of `95,000/- + `3000/- and cost of `2000-/.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Company preferred this appeal. 

          We hear both the parties.  Perused the record.

          In the instant case, the Forum basically ignored the fact to examine the consumer complaint on the basis of relationship as a consumer and a service provider between the parties interse.  In the instant case, the  service provider would be the company.  In view of the provision of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act’ for brevity), the Company and its officials viz. the Chief Engineer and Assistant Engineer are separate distinct and independent jurisdic persons.  The officials viz. Chief Engineer and Assistant Engineer cannot be a service provider.  Therefore, the consumer complaint filed against these officials itself is liable to be dismissed.

          Apart from this, it is alleged that the transformer of the transmission line caught fire and which resulted into the alleged damage to the crop, trees and other irrigation equipments.  It is certainly in respect of the maintenance of the transmission lines or the transformer which caught fire.  It has nothing to do with the service line to the connection given to the complainant.  Thus, for alleged deficiency, the complainant is not a consumer.  For this purpose, we can safely rely upon our earlier decision in Appeal No. A/07/227, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. V/s Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi  and Appeal No. A/07/228, Shri Babulal K. Gandhi V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.  decided on 10^th March 2010.

          The Forum appears to have relied upon certain letters or correspondence which are not tendered in evidence as per section 13(4) of the Act.  They are not admitted or undisputed documents. Impugned order appears to be based upon moral considerations rather than the legal one.

          For the reasons stated above, we find ourselves unable to support the impugned order.  Holding accordingly, we pass the following order :

O R D E R

          Appeal is allowed.  Impugned order dated 17.4.2009 is set aside.  In the result, consumer complaint bearing No. 153/2007 stands dismissed.

 Under the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced dated 7^th December 2011.