Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:
1. Both these appeals are finally heard at length. Appeal no.227/2007 is filed by the org.opp.party/ Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. (MSEDC) while A.no.228/2007 is filed by the org.complainant/Baulal Kuberchand Gandhi. Both these appeals are directed against the order passed by District Forum, Satara in consumer complaint no.281/2003 decided on 25/01/2007. By this order the District Forum directed the org.opp.party, namely, MSEDC that within period of 30 days from the date of order org. opp.party shall pay an amount of `9,73,750/- by way of compensation. It is further directed that for mental agony an amount of `7,500/- be paid and by way of cost of proceedings `3,500/- shall be paid. Org. opp.party/ MSEDC therefore being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order preferred A.No.227/2007. Similarly, org.complainant/ Shri Babulal Gandhi being aggrieved with the said order on the ground that it is an inadequate compensation or damages being given to him by the District Forum, has preferred A.no.228/2007. For the sake of convenience in this order the org.complainant, namely, appellant in A.no.228/2007 and respondent in A.no.227/2007 is referred to as a “complainant”. So also the org.opp.party/ MSEDC, which is appellant in A.no.227/2007 and respondent in A.no.228/2007 is hereinafter referred to as “opp.party”.
2. The complainant is an Agriculturist from Village-Vinchurni, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara and he is residing in a joint family. He is a consumer of the said opp.party. It appears that there are nine agricultural connections taken by the complainant and the opp.party is supplying electric energy to those agricultural connections. The complainant’s case is that though he has 100 acres land located at the site, he has planted in block no. 239 and 238 (Chikku) Sapota, Amla(Goseberry), Tamrind, Sweet Lemon etc. The said garden is being irrigated by drip irrigation system. At a relevant time when the accident had taken place, it was summer season and therefore, mulching was carried out in the said garden. The complainant has stated that in order to give electric supply to the agricultural connections electric line has been laid down through Block No.238 & 239 and from the said electric line the electric energy has been supplied to the nine agricultural pumps so as to irrigate the lands. According to the complainant, 240 trees of Sapota which were standing in the said garden were 15 years old. On 13/03/2000 electric lines due to winds touched to each other and as a result of which there was a short circuit sparking and thereby, fire had taken place in the said garden and approximately 200 trees of Sapota were burnt. According to complainant, the distance which is required to be maintained in between two poles as per rules of respondent was not properly maintained and therefore, the wires which were in loose condition came together as a result of wind pressure and short-circuit had taken place which resulted into damage of 200-205 Sapota trees and therefore, the complaint was filed claiming compensation from the opp.party.
3. Opp.parties have filed reply version. There is no dispute over the fact that the complainant owns block no. 238 and 239 and that Sapota trees were standing in the said garden. It is also not in dispute that opp.party had given nine electric agricultural connections from the electric line and complainant was irrigating said garden by drip irrigation system. It is equally not in dispute that there was fire and in the fire approximately 200 Sapota trees were burnt. Only dispute which has been raised by the opp.party is that that fire has not taken place because of short-circuit and it is otherwise than short-circuit and therefore, opp.parties are not liable.
4. Therefore, the dispute which requires to be considered is as to whether fire has taken place as a result of short-circuit as alleged by the complainant and/or as to whether said fire has not taken place as a result of short-circuit but it has taken otherwise than short circuit.
5. Since the fact of the fire is admitted, only question which is required to be considered is that as to how the fire has taken place. In fact, by mere alleging that fire has not taken place as a result of short-circuit, the responsibility of the opp.party will not be over. Opp.party is under obligation, under these circumstances, to point out that what are the other reasons that put the garden on fire, when there is positive case made out by the complainant that fire has taken place because of short-circuit sparking due to coming in contact with each other, two electric lines as alleged. In order to substantiate this contention evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant. The complainant has filed his own affidavit so also he has filed affidavits of Smt.Alka M.Gandhi, Anil G. Gaikwad, Sunil N. Nimbalkar and Jafarbhai Bagwan. Complainant has stated in his affidavit that the fire has taken place because of short-circuit as a result of two transmission wires came together on 18/05/2003. He has stated that on that day two labours were working in the said garden and they have seen the incident of fire. He has also stated that sub-divisional officer Shri Chintamani Joshi has seen the incidence of burning trees. He has specifically stated that after his visit to the said place, he has seen that electric wires have became black at the place where short-circuit has taken place. This place was also visited by Talathi. In support of the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit of Sunil S. Nimbalkar and Anil G.Gaikwad, the labourers of complainant. Shri S.S. Nimbalkar has stated that on 18/05/2003 at noon time he was working with the complainant. He states that at noon time he and Anil G.Gaikwad both were watering the sweet lemon trees and they were taking the water in small tractor trolly. He stated that at that time electric meter from block no.338 was on and they were watering the trees. At that time there was heavy wind, as a result of which the electric wires touched each other and there was fire. Those wires according to complainant were in loose condition and therefore, the incidence has taken place. He also stated that since the wires touched each other because of wind, the fire broke out because of sparking out of short circuit and therefore, the garden was set on fire. Since there was mulching, rapidly the fire spread and the wind was also responsible for spreading the fire. The two witnesses were the persons on the site and they have specifically supported the complainant. Therefore, reading the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses, there is no difficulty in drawing an inference that the fire has taken place due to short-circuit which was caused to the transmission wires which were going through the land of the complainant. Apart from this oral evidence there is equally an evidence of the police investigation. What is important to be noted that electrical inspector has visited the site on 19/03/2003. From his report it is cleat that a point where the short-circuit incidence has taken place, the distance between the two pole is 284 feet and 258 feet. He has specifically stated that the distance between 10 poles which were/are going through the land of the complainant was not constant. He has stated that after the incidence one pole has been installed by the opp.party but taking into consideration the distance of poles, he reports that required distance was not properly maintained. The electrical inspector also stated that the distance maintained between electric poles is not as per the rules. By this report, we find two facts that the distance between the two electric poles at a relevant place where the incidence had taken place was more than prescribed specification and therefore, the case of the complainant that there were loose wires which were responsible for the short-circuit as a result of heavy wind gets support and established.
6. Secondly installation of additional pole by opponents after the incidence also shows that opponents realized that loose wires was a cause for short circuit and thus, opponents have tried to improve situation to show that there was proper installation of electric poles. This is an attempt to destroy original evidence so as to avoid liability. While the case was pending, it appears that Commissioner was appointed to carry out the mock trial and demonstration. Even in that demonstration electrical inspector has found that when the loose wires comes together fire takes place and the possibility of fire as alleged cannot be ruled out. Said report of Commissioner is on record. What is important to be noted is that that as against the two affidavits of labourers of the complainant, there is no other rebuttal affidavit evidence produced on record on behalf of opp.party to substantiate their contention that there was no electrical spark and fire was not due to electrical spark. On the contrary the report of the electrical inspector shows that wires were loose and possibility of wires coming together as a result of heavy wind cannot be ruled out. Thus, from the report of electrical inspector, it was crystal clear that after the incidence by putting one pole and covering the transmission wires that has became black, the show has been made and attempt was made by the opp.party to suppress the material evidence which was in favour of the complainant. In fact, public institution like opp.party should not have indulged into such acts. We hold under these circumstances, that the fire in present case has taken place as a result of the short-circuit caused because of the loose electrical transmitting wires which came together because of wind. Had the opposite party taken care to maintain proper distance between electric poles, the electric wires would not have been loose and would not have come together because of wind so as to have short circuit which is responsible for fire in question. Therefore, opp.party was/is responsible for the loss which has been suffered by the complainant and the finding recorded by the District Forum to that effect is proper and we confirm the said finding.
7. The second question which requires a consideration is what should be the quantum of damages.
8. The evidence shows that after the incidence the various authorities of Revenue Department visited the spot so also electrical inspector visited the spot and one expert appointed by the District Forum, Shri Mukund Gaikwad has also visited the spot for evaluation of the damages. From the report of Shri Mukund Gaikwad, it is certainly concluded that 200 trees of Sapota were burnt and their burnt stems were standing. Each of the trees was 18 years old. We have gone through the report of Shri Mukund Gaikwad, who is Ph.D. in Agriculture supposed to be expert in Horticulture. Dr.Mukund Gaikwad was appointed by the District Forum as Commissioner to evaluate the loss. His statement shows that he has taken into consideration 240 Sapota trees, each tree having 2000 fruits and therefore, he has taken into consideration the rate at 0.50 i.e. `1,000/- less cost of cultivation of `50/-. Therefore, each tree in a year would have given `950/- and, thus, he calculated `22,800/- yearly income of the garden. He has multiplied the said figure by 11.971 i.e. estimated years of the garden in future and therefore, calculated `27,29,388/- plus `460/- by way of fuel value and thus, valued `27,29,848/-. In order to rebut this expert report no counter material has been filed by the opp.party. This report also has been accepted by the District Forum. As per this report the total compensation has not been paid and therefore, the complaint has filed an appeal as stated above for enhancement. The submission on behalf of complainant is that total compensation to the extent of `20 Lakhs which was within jurisdiction of the District Forum should have been allowed and therefore, they are coming before State Commission. What we find that if the report is non-controverted and was not rebutted and it was sought by the District Forum so as to assess the value of the said garden the District Forum should have accepted the said report in toto. Further, District Forum has came to the conclusion that since the trees have been burnt and therefore, another plantation can be carried out and within 4-5 years new plants will be giving fruits and thereby, have tried to reduce the valuation, holding that estimate that tree will not be of 18 years, because garden will be available within five years is not justifiable. It was wrong on the part of District Forum to hold that Mirams Table has been attached by Dr.Gaikwad. On going through the table, we find that fruit bearing capacity of each tree and value of the fruit is multiplied. He has not calculated the value of the land which is required to be carried out by the Mirams Table. There is no value added for the land by Dr.Gaikwad. Therefore, the observations made by District Forum are not sustainable in law. What we have to take into consideration that had the incidence would not have taken place, what would have been the life of the garden and on that basis calculate the damages. If the expert says that the tree has life for 18 years, it is not open for District Forum to substitute that finding in the absence of rebuttal material or in absence of counter affidavit to that effect or any expert material to that effect. However, opp.party has not produced any material to show that tree will not survive for 18 years and within five years new garden will come. However, erection and plantation of new garden is also a further expenditure and that expenditure has not been considered by the District Forum while reducing the claim.
9. What we find is that submissions made by the Ld.Counsel for the complainant that even though valuation has been carried out to the extent `27,29,848/- yet `20 Lakhs should have been granted by District Forum appears to be justified. We find that said submission is reasonable one and District Forum would have granted an amount of `20 Lakhs. However, in that circumstances the amount for mental agony and cost of litigation could not be granted because it would have been more than pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the District Forum should have granted compensation of `20 Lakhs in aggregate. We only express our opinion accordingly.
10. The last and important question which is raised for our consideration by the Ld.Counsel for the opp.party is that that the complainant is not a consumer within definition of Consumer as it appears in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also in Electricity Act and Rules. He invited our attention to the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, since the electric connections in the present case were given to the complainant when said Act was in force. In Section 2(c) of the said Act the Consumer has been defined as follows:
“ Consumer means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act or any law for the time being in force, and includes any persons whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be”.
Then he invited our attention to the definition of Distributing Main and Electric Supply-Line. In Section 2(e) of the said Act the definition of Distributing Main is as follows:
“ Distribution Main means the portion of any main or any main with which a service line is, or is intended to be, immediately connected.”
In Section 2(f) of the said Act the definition of Electric Supply-Line is as follows:
“ Electric Supply-line means a wire, conductor or other means used for conveying, transmitting or distributing energy (whether by overhead line or underground cable), together with any casing, coating, covering, tube, pipe or insulator enclosing, surrounding or supporting the same or any part thereof, or any apparatus connected therewith for the purpose of so conveying, transmitting or distributing such energy and includes any support, cross-arm, stay, strut or safety device erected or set up for that purpose.”
In Section 2(i) the Main has been defined as:
“ Main means any electric supply-line through which energy is, or is intended to be supplied.”
He has also invited our attention to the definition of Consumer from the booklet on Maharashtra State Electricity Board – Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Here the Consumer has been defined in 1(b) as
“ Consumer means the owner or occupier of the premises which is for the time being connected for supply of electrical energy with the Board’s distribution system, and includes intending consumer.”
Installation has been defined in 1(f) as:
“ Installation means the whole of electric wires, fittings, motors and apparatus erected and wired by or on behalf of the consumer on one and the same set of premises.”
But low tension consumer means all such consumers who obtain supply from the Board at 400/440 volts or below. Low Tension means pressure at 400/440 Volts DC/AC and below a 50 cycles per second.
Service line has been dealt with in Rule 4(a), (c) and (f) as follows:
“ (a) upon receipt of an application, an Engineer of the Board will inspect the premises and fix the point of entry of the service line and the position of the service cut-outs and meters in consultation with the consumer and/or his licened Electrical Contractor, prior notice of which will be sent to the consumer. The position of the supply service, main cut-out, or circuit breakers and the meter shall be so fixed as to permit easy access to the employees of the Board at any time……..”
(c ) For purpose of supply except for agricultural pumping, the Board would provide overhead service line with a free allowance of 30 meters from the point of supply which in the opinion of the Board is technically suitable for such purpose. Any length in excess of 30 meters as above shall be paid for by the applicant…….”
(f) The service line, notwithstanding that full cost or a portion of the cost has been paid for by the consumer, shall be and remain the property of the Board, by whom ii is to be maintained.”
(13) We have found that the Opponent is responsible to cause a loss to the Complainant and have quantified the damages. But, the important question which requires a consideration is – whether the Complainant and the Opponent have any relationship of a consumer and a service provider as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Once we find that the Complainant is a Consumer then the liability to pay compensation or damages which the Complainant has sustained is of the Opponents. However, if we come to the conclusion that there is no relationship of a consumer and a service provider amongst the Complainant and the Opponent then the result follows that the complaint has to be dismissed. But that would not non suit the complainant. The complainant may claim the said compensation in other court.
(14) Relying on above provisions the Ld. Counsel for the Opponent submitted that there is no relationship of a consumer and a service provider at the relevant time and at the relevant place of the alleged accident of short circuit and of the sparking of the wires due to heavy winds which ultimately resulted into the burning of 200 Sapota trees. According to him the consumer has also been defined in the Indian Electricity Act of 1910 and the Electricity Act of 2003. He also referred to the other provisions like that of a main service line, distributing main, the electric supply line, overhead line etc. He also referred to the conditions for the supply of electrical energy and submitted that the consumer under the Electricity Act pays for the energy charges consumed by him in a line which is installed after the installation of meter. He submitted that the electric line before the meter can be classified as a main electrical line to supply energy to the public that can be termed as a main transmission line. He submitted that from the main line there is a service line and the said service line supplies the energy to a single consumer either from the distributing main or immediately from the supplier’s premises and/or from a distributing main to the group of consumers on the same premises or an adjoining premises supplied from the same point of distributing main. Thus his argument in short is that the relationship of a consumer under the Electricity Act starts from the meter onwards and the service lines or other transmission lines are owned by the Board and therefore, the fault on those lines cannot be attributed as a deficiency in service to the consumer, especially in case of fire like the present case. He submitted that the transmission lines may pass through the land of the consumer and/or from the land of the non-consumer. But, in case of a non-consumer, if there is damage caused due to short circuit from a transmission line, since he is not a consumer, his case will have to be considered in the Civil Court either under tortuous liability and/or absolute liability and/or negligence and therefore, he submitted that the two persons similarly situated cannot be differently treated. He submitted that when damages are resulted because of fault from the main transmission line, the consumer dispute would not lie. He submitted that if damages are caused due to fault of opponent, in electric line installed after meter in the premises of complainant, then opponents will be liable because according to him the consumer prays for said electric consumption. The electric lines which are brought upto the premises of consumer are only installed by opponents to bring electric current to the meter and consumption payable starts thereafter. Therefore Ld.counsel submitted that admittedly in the present case accident has not taken in between meter and pumping set but it has taken place due to contact of transmission line prior to meter and therefore, the accident has not taken at place where parties are related as consumer and service provider.
(15) Other ground which he has raised claiming that in the present case complainant is not a consumer because according to him the agricultural electric connection close to the transmission line was/is given to the brother of the Complainant and therefore, the Complainant is not the Consumer.
(16) Mr. Talkute, the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant submitted that, only because the agricultural connection stands in the name of his brother that does not preclude the Complainant to file the complaint. He submitted that the brother of the Complainant and the Complainant are the members of the joint family and the said agricultural connection is taken for the benefit of the family including the Complainant and therefore, within the definition of the consumer under Consumer Protection Act the Complainant can be said to be a Consumer and the complaint is very much tenable.
(17) Answering to the other points raised on the basis of the statutory provisions referred to above, the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant submitted that, any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee is included in the definition of the Consumer under the Electricity Act. He also submitted that, that the terms and conditions which are referred to by the Counsel for the Opponent defines the Consumer as the owner or occupier of the premises which is for the time being connected for the supply of electrical energy with the Board’s distribution system and includes intending consumer. Referring to the various conditions he ultimately submitted that the present Complainant is a consumer and the complaint filed by the Complainant is very much tenable.
(18) Under the circumstances, we have to consider the relationship of the Complainant and the Opponent in the present matter. The Consumer has been defined under the Consumer Protection Act in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) as follows: (relevant)
(ii) 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 any 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.
The Indian Electricity Act 1910, defines the Consumer in Section 2(c) as:
2(c) Consumer means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee or the Government or by any person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, and it includes any persons whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person as the case may be.
The Indian Electricity Act 2003 has also defined the word ‘Consumer’ in Section 2(15) and the said definition is also ad-verbatim same with the definition of a ‘Consumer’ in Indian Electricity Act 1910. The definition of a ‘Consumer’ as reflected from the conditions and license charges for supply of electrical energy of the Opponents is as follows:
“Consumer” means any person who is owner or occupier of the premises which is for the time being connected for supply of electrical energy with the Board’s distribution system and includes intending consumer.
These 3/4 definitions are referred by the Advocates of both sides. Apart from these definitions, the reference was made to the following definitions from the Indian Electricity Act of 1910:
2(e) “Distribution Main” means the portion of any main with which a service line is, or is intended to be, immediately connected.
2(i) “Main” means any electric supply-line through which energy is, or is intended to be supplied to the public.
2(l) “Service-line” means any electric supply-line through which energy is, or is intended to be supplied –
(i) to a single consumer either from a distributing main or immediately from the supplier’s premises or
(ii) from a distributing main to a group of consumers on the same premises or on adjoining premises supplied from the same point of the distributing main.
2(mc) “Transmit” means conveyance of energy by means of transmission line and the expression “transmission” shall be construed accordingly.
The above referred definitions from the Indian Electricity Act 1910 and the definition of those words in Indian Electricity Act 2003 are ad-verbatim the same.
(19) The following definitions in the clauses from the conditions of the supply of electric energy of the Opponent are equally relevant. We have already referred to the definition of a ‘Consumer’ from these conditions above. The other terms and conditions which are relevant for our purpose in deciding point under consideration are as under:
1(f) “Installation” means the whole of electric wires, fittings, motors and apparatus erected and wired by or on behalf of the consumer on one and the same set of premises.
1(J)(i) “Low Tension Consumer” means all such consumers who obtain supply from the Board of 400/440 volts DC/AC and below.
(ii) “High Tension” means pressure at 400/440 Volts DC/AC and below at 50 cycles per second.
Condition No.4 deals with the Service Lines:
(a) upon receipt of an application, an Engineer of the Board will inspect the premises and fix the point of entry to the service line and the position of the service cut-outs and meters in consultation with the consumer and/or his licened Electrical Contractor, prior notice of which will be sent to the Consumer. The position of the supply service, main cut-out or circuit breakers and the meter shall be so fixed as to permit easy access to the employees of the Board at any time.
4(c) For the purpose of supply, except for agricultural pumping, the Board would provide overhead service line with a free allowance of the 30 metres from the point of supply which in the opinion of the Board is technically suitable for such purpose. Any length in excess of 30 metres as above shall be paid for by the applicant.
4(f) The service line, notwithstanding that full cost or a portion of the cost has been paid for by the Consumer, shall be and remain the property of the Board, by whom it is to be maintained.
Rule 6 is in connection with the service connection charges for agricultural pumping loads:
6(b) Supply from Existing Rural Transformer Sub-Station:
(i) Overhead Service Line:
In case of bonafide agricultural pumping loads, the Board provides overhead service line free of cost upto 300 metres from the nearest distribution point, i.e. from an existing rural transformer sub-station, or from a service line already laid down for supply to any other consumer, provided the latter has sufficient current capacity. Any length excess of the free length as detailed above is payable at the rates given below which include the cost of the pole except the cost of terminal pole at the consumer’s end (rest is not relevant).
Rule-9 – Point of Supply:
Unless otherwise agreed to the point of supply shall at the outgoing terminals of the Board’s cutouts fixed after,
1) Meters in case of L.T. consumers.
2) Control switch gear that may be installed in consumer’s
premises under condition 11(a) hereunder.
Rule-11 — Board’s Supply Mains and Apparatus:
(a) The board shall provide its own meter boards and cut-outs for low tension consumers, and all circuit breakers or high tension fuses for high tension consumer, unless otherwise specified, and these shall remain the property of the Board and must on no account be operated, handled or removed by anyone who is not in the employment of the Board. Likewise, the seals, nameplates and distinguishing numbers or marks of the Board affixed on said property shall not be interfered with on any account or broken, removed or erased except by employees of the board duly authorised for the purpose.
All these provisions are referred. The submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant is that whenever owner or occupier of the premises is connected with the supply of energy it becomes integrated and integral part of the total electricity supply system and therefore, he is a consumer and it is further not necessary to dissect and find out when and at what point of time, or place relationship of a consumer starts. Therefore, a simple argument is that the moment the person or persons consuming electricity is connected with the electricity Board’s lines is a consumer and therefore, even if the fault takes place at a place or on a transmission line the said person shall be entitled for the benefit of the Consumer Protection Act, being a Consumer.
(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 according 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 any 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 meter 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 consumers. 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 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 Commission, New Delhi, in the matter of Shankar Sitaram Jadhav V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Board, reported in 1994 STPL (CL) 582 NC. The facts involved in this case were that, on the night of 2nd and 3rd 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 had 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 V/s. 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 V/s. Sher Singh, (R.P. No.672 of 1993) where a 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, Lucknow, in U.P. State Electricity Board and another V/s. Munnoo, reported in 2004 CCJ 390, where 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 08.12.1996 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/sec 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 V/s A.P.S.E.B. & Ors., reported in 1999(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 the 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 though the Opponents 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.
(22) 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 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 meter 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 an 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.
(25) We have dealt with all the points raised by the parties. But, we find that since there is no relationship of any consumer and service provider between complainant and opponent and complaint was/is not tenable. Therefore, we pass following order:
O R D E R
(i) The Appeal No. 227/2007 filed by the Original Opponents is hereby allowed and the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Satara in Complaint No.281/2003 is quashed and set aside. Consumer Complaint No.281/2003 filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara is dismissed.
(ii) Appeal No. 228/2007 filed by the Original Complainant is hereby dismissed.
(iii) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(iv) Copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
Note :- This judgement was dictated partly in the open court and it could not be completed on that day. However, operative part was declared. It was told to the parties that rest of the reasoning will be dictated in the chamber and, accordingly, it was subsequently dictated. Because of the several mistakes in the dictation and the corrections, judgement could not be finalized immediately.
