Date of Filing            : 21/07/2012

Date of Admission   : 27/02/2013

Date of Judgment    : 21/01/2014

 

Mr. Shivajirao Maruti Bisale

R/o Sambhajinagar, Jat Dist. Sangli                                     ……. COMPLAINANT

 

1. The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution

2. The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution

3. Electricity Inspection Division, through

 

 

1.         The instant complaint u/s 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by the complainant, claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh, on account of damages to his custard apple trees, situated within the area of 1.20 acres, out of his land Gat No.181, situated at Mauje Tippehalli, Tal. Jat, Dist. Sangli and also damages to his drip irrigation system, installed in the said portion, due to the sparking, which resulted out of the loose transmission lines erected by the respondents, in his field for providing agricultural electrical connection. The said incident of sparking took place on 2/5/11 at 3.00 p.m. due to the loosened line in the field. The complainant has also claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/-, on account of the mental pain and suffering.

 

2.         The facts in nutshell are : That the complainant is the owner and possessor of a land Gat No.181 situated at Mauje Tippehalli, Tal. Jat, Dist. Sangli.  Out of the total area of the said land in a portion admeasuring 1.20 acres, the complainant had planted the custard apple trees and had created a garden of the said trees. He had also installed the drip irrigation system in the said portion in order to irrigate the said trees. An agricultural electric connection has been provided by the respondent to the complainant from Birnak Deokate Vasti transmission line. On 2/5/11, in the afternoon, at about 3.00 p.m., while the complainant was present, in the said field, there was sparking on the transmission line coming from Deokate vasti. Due to the said sparking, the custard apple trees and the drip irrigation system of the complainant caught fire and was burnt. The entire trees of the custard apple situated within the 1.20 acres of land and the entire drip irrigation system was completely burnt. The complainant has estimated the loss on that account to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh. The intimation of the said accident and the loss sustained by the complainant was given in writing by the complainant, on 3/5/11 to Asstt. Engineer, MSSEDCL at Sub-Division, Jat, who inspected the spot on 11/5/11. On 10/5/11, the complainant submitted an application to the Tahsildar, Jat who inspected the spot of accident and to hold the panchanama and to take the necessary action. The Talathi of village Tippehalli conducted the actual inspection of the burnt custard apple garden and the drip irrigation system and drew the panhanama. In the same Panchanama, it was mentioned that the complainant has sustained the damaged to his custard apple trees and drip irrigation system to the extent of Rs.1 lakh. Even the police were intimated about the incident but no action was taken by the police department. On 1/8/11, the electrical inspector Miraj visited the spot alongwith the Asstt. Engineer, Jat and conducted the Panchanama. After much persuasion by the complainant on 12/10/11, it was informed by the electrical inspector to the complainant that office of the Executive Engineer, MSEDCL, Kawathemahankal Subdivision has been intimated that the said incident had taken place due to the faulty installation of the MSEDCL and the said company is responsible for the loss and to compensate the complainant and therefore, the MSEDCL is directed to pay the appropriate compensation to the complainant till 30/10/11. Despite thereof, the respondents have not taken any action for paying the compensation to the complainant and thus, the complainant is entitled to the compensation, as mentioned above. On such contentions, the complainant has prayed for the reliefs as stated above.

 

3.         The complainant has filed an affidavit in support of his complaint at Exh.2 and alongwith the list of documents at Exh.3, he has filed, as many as 12 documents, which include the copies of written intimation of accident to the Asstt. Engineer, Jat subdivision, Jat dated 3/5/11, the copy of an application dated 10/5/11 submitted to the Tahsil for drawing the panchanama, the copy of the report dated 11/5/11 submitted to the police station Jat, the copies of the applications dated 30/5/11, 23/6/11, 26/7/11 submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the complainant, calling upon the copy of the report of the incidence and the report of the Electrical Inspector, the copy of the Panchanama drawn by the Electrical inspector and the Asstt. Engineer, Jat dated 1/8/11, the copy of the letter dated 10/10/11 submitted by the complainant, claiming the compensation, the photographs of the spot of incidence, the 7/12 extract and the bills regarding typing, photograph and Xerox etc. 

 

4.         The Resp. No.1 & 2 have appeared and they have filed their written statement at Exh.14 and have traversed all the contentions of the complainant and have denied the claim in toto. They have admitted the fact that the complainant is the owner and possessor of the land Gat No.181 but it is contended that in 7/12 extract pertaining to the said land, it is not mentioned that the complainant had started a custard apple trees garden in 1 acre 20 R area in the said land. The necessary details regarding starting the said custard apple trees garden, the area in which the drip irrigation system has been installed etc. have been deliberately suppressed by the complainant and therefore, for want of knowledge, these contentions are denied by the respondent No.1 & 2. The Resp.No.1 & 2 have further contended that Jat area is a draught stricken area and from January to May of every year, all the crops including the sugarcane in the fields situated in that area get dried up, for want of rains. Similarly, the fruit trees also get dried up for want of water. If the garden of the complainant was green due to the irrigation, then there was no question of complainant’s garden getting burnt due to sparking or for any other reason. The amount of damages to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh mentioned by the complainant is vague and approximate and without any basis. The said claim of compensation of Rs.1 lakh is false and illegal. The Resp.No.1 & 2 have further contended that the complainant is not consumer. That the complainant has never seen the sparking taking place on the electric poles. The said contention is based on hearsay information received by the complainant. All of a sudden, there was a storm and in that storm, the transmission line was cut. The Resp.No.1 & 2 had maintained the said transmission lines in the appropriate manner. That Resp.No.1 & 2 cannot be held responsible for the sudden dust and wind and the breaking of the transmission line. The Panchanama drawn by the Talathi was held in the absence of the Resp.No.1 & 2 and the said panchanama is illegal and wrong. The said panchanama does not mention the exact number of custard apple trees. The said panchanama was held after 25 days of the incident, which shows that the said panchanama was not drawn at the spot and it was prepared as per the say of the complainant. The Resp.No.1 & 2 have alleged that even the Electrical Inspector has also submitted a false and illegal report, under the pressure of the complainant, after about 50 days of the incident. The Resp.No.3 has also not visited the spot and has prepared the report by sitting in his office and therefore, his report is illegal. They have alleged that the complainant is trying to recover the compensation anyhow. That the claim of the complainant is baseless and wrong and therefore, the complaint be dismissed. On such contentions, Resp.No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissing the complaint with costs.

 

5.         The Resp.No.1 & 2 have submitted the said written statement alongwith affidavit of Asstt. Engineer Sh. S.A. Mailapure. However, they have not filed any document.

 

6.         The Electrical Inspector has submitted his statement by post which is stated as written statement and is marked as Exh.14. According to him, the Electrical Inspector conducts the enquiry into the accidents taken place due to the electricity u/s 161 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2005 and the persons responsible for the said accident are directed to pay the compensation. That an intimation regarding the accident which took place in the field of complainant on 2/5/11, was received to the office of Electrical Inspector, Miraj from the office of Asstt. Engineer, MSEDCL Jat. Thereafter, the enquiry was held on 10/5/11 and on 1/8/11 by Shri S.R. Patil, Branch Engineer and Incharge Asstt. Electrical Inspector. In that enquiry, it transpired that a low pressure transmission line has been led in land Gat No.181 of vill. Jat. That the transmission lines became loose and they were hanging low. That when those transmission lines came near each other, there was a sparking and the sparks fell down on the dried grass situated in the custard apple garden of the complainant and the said dried grass started burning. Due to the burning grass, the custard apple trees and the drip irrigation system of the complainant was burnt. Due to the sparking R phase of overhead transmission line was broken. That the said overhead transmission was not properly maintained and it had become dangerous and due to which, the said incidence of sparking took place and hence, the complainant was entitled to the appropriate damages. That the MSEDCL was liable for the said accident and therefore, by a letter No.1515 dated 3/8/11, the Electrical Inspector had directed the Resp.No.1 & 2 to pay the proper compensation. That the office of the Electrical Inspector does not pay any compensation to the consumers and it only issues order to the concerned responsible to pay the compensation, after holding the enquiry and on the basis of the findings recorded. That since the electrical inspector Miraj has already directed the Executive Engineer, Kawathemahankal Division (Resp.No.2) to pay the compensation to the complainant, the office of the Electrical Inspector be not held responsible to pay any compensation to the complainant.

 

7.         Alongwith the said reply, the Resp.No.3 has filed the extract of the relevant section 161 of the Electricity Act and the copy of the letter dated 3/8/11 bearing No. 1515/11 directing the Resp.No.2 to pay the appropriate compensation to the complainant.

 

8.         Neither party to this proceeding has led any oral evidence. The complainant has filed pursises at Exh.15, 16 and 21 specifically contending therein that he does not want to lead any oral evidence or additional evidence other than the documents filed by him on record already. The Respondents have not taken any pains to file such pursis, but their learned counsel has submitted his oral submissions on the merits of this case.

 

9.         We have heard the complainant in person and the learned counsel for the Resp.No.1 & 2 Adv. Shri U.J. Chipre at length.

 

10.       The following points arose for our consideration and determination :

 

1) Whether the complainant has proved that the

2) Whether the complainant is a consumer and is

 

3) What order ?                                                                                As per final order.

 

 

11.       The reasons for our findings above are as follows.

 

 

 

 

12.       At the outset, it must be mentioned here that the Respondents have not seriously disputed the incident of sparking which took place on 3/5/11 at about 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon, in the field of the complainant. Though the Resp.No.1 & 2 have denied the fact that the complainant had planted the custard apple trees in the land and had installed the drip irrigation system in his land and that the said trees and the drip irrigation system was damaged, they have not come forward and have not led any evidence rebutting the contentions of the complainant in any manner. The complainant has filed 7/12 extract pertaining to the land Gat No.181 of vill. Tippehalli alongwith the list of documents at Exh.3/10. The bare perusal of the said 7/12 extract would show that the complainant is the owner and possessor of the land Gat No.181 of village Tippehalli Tal. Jat. He has also filed a 8A statement of the said land. The complainant has also filed one 7/12 extract pertaining to his land Gat No.181 alongwith his affidavit at Exh.17. The perusal of the said 7/12 extract would show that in the year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, the trees of custard apples were existing in 0.16 R land besides the trees of pomegranate and the jawar crop. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, being led by the Respondent, the said 7/12 extract can be taken as a sufficient evidence to prove that the complainant had raised garden of custard apple trees in the said land and the said garden was existing, as on the date of incident. In their w.s. (Exh.14), Respondents No.1 & 2 have admitted that a wire from the overhead transmission line was broken due to the storm on the date of incidence and for the said incident the Resp.No.1 & 2 are not responsible. Such a pleading of the Resp.No.1 & 2 shows that they are admitting the incident in substance but are denying the responsibility for the said incident. We have already pointed out the say filed by the Electrical Inspector Resp.No.3, who has categorically contended that incident in question took place due to the loosened overhead transmission lines which were passing through the land Gat No.181 and the said wires were loosened due to the lack of maintenance by the Resp.No.1 & 2 and those transmission lines were hanging loose and they came in contact with each other resulting into sparking. The incident has taken place on 3/5/11 which was during the summer season. Due to the summer, there ought to be the presence of dried grass which is bound to catch fire due to this falling sparks from the overhead transmission lines and started burning resulting into the damages to the standing custard apple trees and the drip irrigation system installed in the said portion of land. The Electrical Inspector is an independent body constituted under the relevant provisions of the Indian Electricity Act 2005 who is enjoined the duty of conducting the inspection into the causes of Electrical accident and to submit the report. There is no denial of the fact that the Electrical Inspector has carried out the inspection of the site of incident and has submitted the report. The Respondents have contended that the said report has been prepared by the Electrical Inspector at the behest of the complainant without visiting the spot of incidence and the said report is false. The burden to prove this contention was squarely on the Resp.No.1 & 2 but as stated earlier, they have not stepped into the witness box and proved the said contention. On the contrary, we find a letter dated 6^th April 2013 issued by the Resp.No.1 & 2 Executive Engineer Kawathemahankal to the Asstt. Engineer, MSEDCL, Jat sub-division, Jat in which there is a categorical statement made by the Resp.No.2 that the Electrical Inspector has held the MSEDCL responsible for the incident in question and has directed to pay the proper compensation to the complainant, but so far no action has been taken by the Resp.No.1 and the Resp.No.1 is directed to submit his explanation for the inaction. This letter issued by the Resp.No.2 gives a complete death blow to the contentions raised by the Resp.No.1 & 2 in their w.s. touching the genuineness of the report submitted by the Electrical Inspector. Even otherwise also, the report submitted by the Electrical Inspector, copy of which is filed on record by the complainant, would carry a presumption value and can be accepted and thus, relying on the said report of electrical Inspector, we hold that the complainant has proved that the incident in question has taken place due to the fault of the Resp.1 & 2 in maintaining the transmission lines in the proper manner and the Resp. MSEDCL company is liable to compensate to the complainant. Therefore, we hold accordingly and hence, we have answered the point No.1 above in the affirmative.

 

 

13.       Having held that the Resp.No.1 & 2 are liable for the loss caused to the complainant, the immediate question that springs up is whether in this proceeding/complaint, under the Consumer Protection Act, the Resp.No.1 & 2 can be directed to pay the compensation to the complainant and whether the complainant is a consumer in order to claim reliefs in the present proceedings. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No. A/07/227 & First Appeal No. A/07/228 dated 10/3/10 and followed by decisions in First Appeal No. A/10/1068 dated 21/6/13 and in First Appeal No. A/05/1230 dated 30/6/12 and also in First Appeal No. A/08/591 dated 12/7/11 and First Appeal No. A/01/1359 dated 22/6/11, we are bound to answer the said question in the negative. It is pertinent to recall that the respondents No.1 & 2 have contended in their w.s. that the complainant is not a consumer and therefore, the present complaint is not tenable. We have carefully gone through the judgment of our Hon’ble State Commission in all the cases mentioned above and we find that in all these cases, as in the present case, there was a sparking at the overhead transmission lines. In the present case also, there was a sparking at the overhead transmission lines which were led through the field Gat No.181 owned and possessed by the complainant.  In the First Appeal No. A/07/227 & First Appeal No. A/07/228 dated 10/3/10 our Hon’ble State Commission has referred to the various definitions of the word consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and the Indian Electricity Act of 1910 and 2003. It has also considered the definitions of the word “Distribution” “Main”, “Service Line” “Transmit” as given in Indian Electricity Act of 1910, “Installations”, “Low tension”, “consumer”, “High Tension” “the conditions dealing with service lines”, “overhead service lines”, “Rules regarding point of supply”, “board of supply”, “Mains and apparatus”. We would respectfully reproduce the findings of the Hon’ble State Commission recorded in para 20 to 24 in judgment delivered in First Appeal No. A/07/227 & First Appeal No. A/07/228 dated 10/3/10. 

“ (20)              Under the various definitions which we have quoted above, the definition of the ‘distribution main’ and ‘service line’ are important. The “main” has been defined as any electric supply-line through which energy is supplied to the public. Therefore, the general line from which the electric supply is coming to the public at large, is a ‘main’. The “Distribution main” has been defined as a portion of any main with which a service line is connected. Therefore, the ‘distribution main’ is a portion of a main and it is important to note that the joining of a service-line makes that portion as a distribution main. Therefore, the service-line is a line through which the electric energy is supplied to single consumer either from distribution main or immediately from the supplier’s premises or from the distribution main to a group of consumers on the same premises or an adjoining premises. In the present matter, we need not consider the case of an immediate supply from the supplier’s premises because it is not a case wherein the connection has been given to the complainant directly from the supplier’s premises. The case which we are dealing with is the case of service-line which is coming from distribution main and from that angle, the case will have to be considered. Thus, we get on record four types of electric lines, “first Transmission” line, which simply transmits the energy from one place to another place. Secondly, “the main”, which supplies energy to the public. Thirdly, “Distribution Main” – the portion of the main which is connected with service-line to the consumer. Fourthly, ‘service line’. Therefore, it is the service-line which connects the consumer premises with a distribution main and then to the main. Thus, looked to the definition of a consumer from Electricity Act, it will be evident that the person to whom the energy is supplied by the licensee, Government or Board engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act, said person is said to be a consumer. Inclusive clause states that any person whose premises for the time being are connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee or Government as the case may be, such other person is also a consumer. Looking to this definition, with the terms and conditions which are referred to above, it will be found that the point of service and the point of supply is depending upon the erection of a service line and the service line is to be fixed by the Opponent as per Rule No.4. As per Rule 4(f) – despite the fact that the service line has been installed at the cost of the consumer, it is the property of the Board. Since, we are dealing with an agricultural connection, the Clause 6(b) is relevant which provides that the free service line upto 300 meters shall be provided by the Opponent and for excess lines, the charges will be leviable. But, the fact still remains that the said service line of agricultural connection is also owned by the opponent. The Rule-9 is very important which fixes a point of supply. According to it, point of supply is a point of a outgoing terminals of the Board’s cut-outs fixed after the meters in the case of L.T. consumers. Therefore, upto the meter and outgoing terminals cut-outs fixed after the meter, it is the service-line which belongs to the Board. In short, what we find is that at the point of a meter the energy is calculated, the consumption of an energy is calculated and the consumer pays charges for energy consumption which is recorded in the meter. From the definition of a “consumer” from the Consumer Protection Act, the second part is relevant since we are dealing with case of “service provider” and accordingly to second part of said definition, ‘consumer’ means a person who hires or avails of any service for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes an beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.  Therefore, the electric service is hired from the point of a meter under deferred payment system, i.e. after the consumption of energy, bills are tendered by the opponent and they are subsequently paid. Therefore, the electricity consumption after the meter is calculated in meter for which the consumer pays. The lines which are installed prior to the meters are owned by the opponent and even if part of it is installed by the Consumer these lines and installation belong to the opponent. Those lines have been erected or installed so as to transmit the electric energy in the premises of the consumer and it enters into the premises of the consumer and calculated for the purpose of the charges at the point where the meter has been installed. The energy is transmitted to the premises of the consumer by a supply line from a distributing main. Therefore, that supply line cannot be said to be supply line or the main line or the transmission lines which entered into the premises of the consumers. On the contrary, the charges of the several consumers to whom the supply has been given from the main or of the distributing main are covered therein. For any individual consumer, the relationship of a supply of electric energy as a consumer commences from the point of installation of a mater and the rest of the lines cannot be considered for the purpose of calculating the charges. The lines which are installed after the meters are installed by the consumers by an electrical license agent of the Board, however, those lines belong to the consumer. Therefore, what we find that there is a force in the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the opponent that the damages caused due to fault in the transmission line cannot be considered as a ground for the purpose of deficiency in service to the individual consumer. There is also force in the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the Opponent that the main lines or the transmission lines pass through several agricultural fields where no connection has been given to the agriculturist though line goes through fields. However, if the short circuit takes place burning of the agricultural crops from the said field, such an agriculturist is required to approach Civil Court. Thus, we find force in the submission that similarly situated persons cannot be forced to have different remedies. In fact, the persons similarly situated shall be treated equally is a legal principle. These aspects have been considered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisison, New Delhi in the matter of Shankar Sitaram Jadhav Vs. Maharashtra State Electrriciry Board, reported in 1994 STPL (CL) 582 NC. The facts involved in this case were that, on the night of 2^nd and 3^rd October there was heavy rain accompanied by strong winds as a result of which some branch of a tree on the road side broke and fell on an overhead transmission wire which snapped and fell down on the road. The deceased while trying to help someone else who had touched the live electric line got electrocuted. His death was thus, due to accident on the public road, and it has no relation to any deficiency in the supply of electricity to the petitioner therein who is a consumer in relation to the supply of electricity to his residence. The line which got snapped, was not supply line to his residence but was the general transmission line. The accident in question was thus not the result of any deficiency in service in relation to the said supply of electricity to the residence of the Petitioner and thus, the claim was rejected. 

 

(21)     The another case decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported in 1997 CCJ 1541 in the matter of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Ganga Devi, where the grievance of the complainant was that a cow belonging to her, had been electrocuted on account of its coming into contact with an electric post and hence, the loss caused to her by reason of death of the cow should be made good by the Board which was responsible for supply of electricity in the area. The same question was also answered in the matter of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Sher Singh, (R.P.No.672 of 1993) where cow belonging to the complainant was killed, as a result of electrocution by coming into contact with the electric wire. The Commission had considered the question as to whether the Electricity Board which was supplying electricity and had been maintaining the electric supply lines could be held responsible under the Consumer Protection Act for making good the loss caused to the complainant and it was answered in the negative. It was held in that case that the grievance put forward by the complainant did not constitute a ‘consumer dispute’ as defined in the Act because it was not a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Board in relation to the performance of any service to a consumer of electricity. The similar question has been considered by Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknbow, in U.P. State Electricity Board and another Vs. Munnoo, reported in 2004 CCJ 390where the complainant Bedli Devi’s son Munnoo, aged five years sustained serious injuries as a result of negligence caused by the Opposite parties. The Opposite parties had put the transformer on an open land in very unsafe position. The incident occurred on 8/12/1996, when Munnoo came in contact with the transformer. He was brought to the hospital and admitted later on to Medical College, Gorakhpur, where he remained from 11/12/1996 to 23/12/1996. The right hand of the child had to be amputated and because of the head injury sustained an operation had to be carried out. All these happened because of the Opposite party having put the transformer in a very unsafe and negligent manner. Ultimately, in this case the State Commission upheld the contention that there is no consumer dispute and that u/s 2(1)(d) the complainant is not a consumer and allowed the appeal of the Board. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, has also taken same view in the matter of Hemalatha Vs. A.P.S.E.B. & Ors.       , reported in 1991(1) CPR 132. Therefore, what we find is that, in the present matter, the accident has not arisen in an area that is from the point where the electric energy is supplied and entered in the premises of the complainant. It has taken place due to the improper installation of the wires from which the main line or from the distributing main lines had been taken and since those lines were loose lines as a result of the heavy winds the short circuit and sparking had taken place. Those are the lines of the opponent which can be generally termed as transmission lines. Those lines cannot form as the part of the terms of the electric supply given to the complainant. Only because the lines are passing through the land of the complainant and the complainant had taken an electric connection thereby the relationship of the consumer would not come into existence. Because of the same line, if the same accident took place in respect of non-consumer, viz. to a person whom the supply has not been given the remedies would be of the civil nature and therefore, we have minutely scrutinized as to what point of relationship of a consumer commences under the Electricity Act r/w the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and have come to the conclusion that at the point of entry into the premises of the consumer, the relationship commences. The rest of the transmission lines are the lines for the transmission of the electricity lines from one place or another and the lines for the transmission of the energy. Therefore, only because they are connected with the main line or the transmission line through the supply line, the complainant cannot claim that he is entitled to the benefit under the Consumer Protection Act. In short, we find that the accident must take place after the meter and at the point of consumption by the consumer for which he is paying the charges. If the accident has not taken place in this area, then the remedy of such a person even through the Opponent have supplied energy to him is to file a civil suit and/or any remedy permitted under the electricity laws. But, we are of the opinion under these circumstances that he is not entitled to claim a benefit of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

The Ld. Counsel for the complainant tried to rely upon the case decided by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein it has been held that once the consumer is connected with any line of the electric supply, he becomes an integrated part of the said system and he is entitled to get benefit under the Consumer Protection Act, is not approved by us in view of the authorities referred to above and also the view taken by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and therefore, the contention which has been raised by the complainant is hereby rejected.

 

23)      Other contention which has been raised is in respect of the matter not standing in the name of the complainant. Though it is the fact that meter is not standing in the name of the complainant which the complainant has admitted in the complaint itself and has stated that they are from joint family and they are beneficiaries of the said meter and they are using the said electric meter to irrigate their land. There is no reply given by the opponents to this stand taken by complainant. Even the definition of the consumer also covers the beneficiaries and therefore, it is not in dispute that the brother has paid the electricity charges and there is no case of any arrears. Therefore, the second contention which has been raised by the Ld. Counsel that the meter is not standing in the name of the complainant and therefore, he is not a consumer is hereby rejected.

 

24)      In short, we find that the relationship of a person as consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, in electric supply case, Board commences with Board or supplier from the point of the meter and lines, the point of consumption the main, distributing main and the transmission lines are in infrastructure lines of the opponents so as to bring supply of the energy to the premises of the consumer. However, the said energy enters into the premises of the consumer through the service line brought upto the meter and cut outs. The service line is always from the pole close to the premises of the consumer and the premises of the consumer. The service line may be overhead and may be underground. If it is under ground, there is no question of any service line. If it is overhead line, it is always insulated and kept with a material so as to avoid shock or damages to the life of any human being. It is not the case of the present complainant that anything has happened after the meter and at the time of consumption of energy through the line which can be considered as any consumer line for which the consumer pays on such line no accident has taken place. The accident admittedly has taken place as a result of the loose wires, either of a main and/or of a distributing main and therefore, there should be consistent remedies for those persons who suffered an accident at this place. Thus, we find that the present dispute is not a consumer dispute. Therefore, even though we have recorded a finding that complainant is entitled for the damages and that the damages have taken place due to short circuit and that compensation is calculated, yet according to us it is not a case which Consumer Forum shall deal. We find that there is no relationship of a “consumer” and the “service provider” between complainant and opponent. Dispute is not a consumer dispute. ”

 

14.       The similar view has been taken by Hon’ble State Commission consistently in all other 4 appeals which we have referred and cited above. It follows from the said dictum of our Hon’ble State Commission that the relationship of a consumer and the service provider between the Electrical consumer and the company commences from the meter installed at the premises of the consumer and upto the point of his consumption. Till the point of entry of the supply line in the premises of the consumer, there is no relationship of the consumer and the service provider between the electrical consumer and the distribution company. The Hon’ble State Commission is consistently holding in all these cases that if there is a sparking due to the faulty transmission line or supply line and the damages are caused to the consumer, such a consumer may be entitled to the damages. His remedy would not lie before the Consumer Forums but his remedy would lie in the Civil Courts. Now this Forum is respectfully bound by the dictum laid down by our Hon’ble State Commission and therefore, relying on all these dictums in the cases cited supra, we hold that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)d) of the Consumer Protection Act and his remedy lies in the Civil Court. The consumer complaint filed by the complainant, therefore, is not tenable and it will have to be dismissed. We, therefore, hold accordingly and hence, we have answered the point No.2 & 3 above in the negative. Needless to say that the complainant is entitled to pursue his remedies in the Civil Court, subject, of course, to Law of Limitation. In the circumstances of this case, and more in view of the fact that the complainant has wrongly prosecuted this claim, we are not inclined to saddle any cost of the respondents on the complainant. We hold accordingly and proceed to pass the following order.

 

1. The complaint is dismissed.

2. The parties shall bear their own costs.

 

 

SANGLI

 

Dated : 21/02/2014