Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal is admitted and heard forthwith with the consent of both the parties.
(2) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 27.03.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.74/2007, Navnath Vasant Nagane V/s. Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.C. and Anr., passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Solapur (‘the Forum’ in short).
(3) It is the case related to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/original Opponents for not taking care of its transmission line. Since it is alleged that due to the overhead transmission line passing through Gat No.284/1, on 19.12.2006, there was a sparking and due to which the sugar cane crop under it was set to fire and damaged. Therefore, consumer complaint was filed. The Appellants/Opponents denied that Respondent/original Complainant is a consumer and further denied that there was any sparking which was resulted into the fire of the sugar cane and that there is any deficiency in service on its part, as alleged.
(4) The Forum upheld the case of the Complainant and awarded compensation of `70,000/- and directed to be paid by the Appellants/Opponents along with interest @9% per annum and further directed to pay costs of `1,000/- to the Complainant. Feeling aggrieved thereof this appeal is preferred by the original Opponent.
(5) In the instant case, admittedly the electric energy supplied by M.S.E.D.C.Ltd. It is an independent distinct separate juridic person. Therefore, in respect of supply of the energy or in respect of the transmission line of the said Company, if any, negligence is claimed; since said Company is not the party to the consumer complaint, the complaint against Executive Engineer or Assistant Engineer of the said Company, namely the Appellants/Officers who are separate distinct juridic persons under section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, they are admittedly, being not service providers, no service deficiency can be alleged against them. In the present case names of the Officers - original Opponents are also not mentioned. No malafides against these officials are alleged. Therefore, granting relief against these Appellants/original Opponents, holding them as service provider, is per se illegal and the Forum committed error of law granting the relief as per the impugned order.
(6) Considering the case of the Complainant as presented, it is only in respect of overhead transmission line. The fact that there was sparking from those transmission lines and as a result of which the sugar cane crop under it was set to fire and damaged is not at all established. Apart from that the 7/12 extract of field Gat No.284/1 shows crop pattern other than the sugar cane for the relevant year 2005-06. In the circumstances, prima-facie, it cannot be said that there was a standing sugar cane in the field and which was damaged due to fire. Panchanama on which the Complainant wanted to rely is not tendered in evidence as per Provisions of Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It also does not mention any Survey Number to which it relates.
(7) Admittedly the crop got fire due to alleged sparking at the overhead transmission lines. Since only in respect of the supply through service line, the Complainant would be a consumer; in respect of overhead transmission line, there exists no such relationship. The issue is covered by this Commission’s earlier decision in the matter of M.S.E.D.C. Ltd. V/s. Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi (First Appeal No.227/2007, decided on 10.03.2010; Coram:Justice – S.B. Mhase, the President, Mr.S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member and Mr.Dhananjay Khamatkar, Member).
(8) For the reasons stated above, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order passed by the Forum in Consumer Complaint No.74/2007 is set aside.
(iii) In the result, the consumer complaint stands dismissed.
(iv) No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 12th July, 2011.
