REVISION PETITION  NO. 14 of 2019

        Learned counsel for the parties are present.

This revision is directed against the ex parte interim order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, Nuapada in CC No. 31 of 2018. The operative portion of which reads as follows:-

“In the above facts and circumstances, we direct the opposite parties to remove the naked 33 KVs electric conductor/wire from the roof of the residential building of the complainant or to place the same on reasonable distance from the roof of the residential building of the complainant as per prescribed Act and Rules of Electricity to ensure the safety of life and property of complainant within 7(seven) days from the date of order, filing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per process of law.”

        The revision petitioners representing Electricity Distribution Company WESCO are the OPs whereas the OP in this revision is the complainant before the learned District Forum.

        Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

        We also perused the copies of the complaint petition and the application for interim order filed by the complainant before the learned District Forum.

        It is snot disputed by the learned counsel for the OP/complainant that a 33 KV High Tension electricity line was in existence since long below which the complainant constructed his house. The grievance of the complainant before the learned District Forum in the complaint is that on 22.12.2018, the electricity pole through which the 33 KV electric line was  erected got bent towards the building of the complainant for which the distance between necked electricity conductor came close to the roof of the house of the complainant. WESCO personnel immediately reached the spot and took steps to ensure that there was safe distance between the electricity wire and the complainant’s roof. However, on 23.12.2018 again the electric pole bent down towards the roof as a result of which the entire building got electrocuted causing damage to the home appliances of the complainant such as TV, stabilizer, etc. Prayer has been made in the complaint to remove the electricity conductor from above the roof of the residential building or to raise the electricity line to  safe distance and also to award compensation and cost.

In the interim application prayer was made for removing the necked 33 KV conductor/wire passing through the roof of the complainant’s not within a distance of one feet.

     Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that by way of filing this revision the revision petitioners assail not only the illegality of the impugned order but also the maintainability of the complaint petition itself. It is contended that so far as the ex parte interim order is concerned, the order amounts to a final order passed in the garb of interim order. No opportunity has been granted to the revision petitioners to file any show cause against the interim application. A blanket order has been passed to comply with the order within a period of 7 days.

        So far as the maintainability of the petition is concerned, it is contended that the dispute raised by the complainant before the learned District Forum does not amount to a consumer dispute. The status of the complainant/OP is not of ‘consumer’ vis a vis WESCO so far as 33 KV electricity line is concerned. The complainant  chose to construct his house below the 33 KV line. Even if the allegation of the complainant to the effect that the electricity pole bent down and the necked electricity line came in the contact with the complainant’s not causing damage to his  appliances is accepted, complainant should have approached appropriate authority for damages on the ground of tortuous liability since there is no contractual relationship between the complainant and WESCO so far as the High Tension line in dispute is concerned. Complainant might be a “consumer” of domestic electricity supply of the WESCO. His grievance  is not with regard to any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in respect of supply of electrify to the residence of the complainant. Therefore, the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

       In reply, learned counsel for the OP draws our attention to the definition of  the word “complaint” u/s 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to urge that since supply of electricity is a transaction in supply of hazardous  material the complaint is maintainable before the District Forum. Under the Electricity Rules the suppliers of electricity are obliged to ensure safety while drawing electricity line. Since in the present case the WESCO has not taken adequate precaution for proper maintenance of 33 KV line damage was caused to the electric equipments belonging to the complainant. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that complaint before the learned District Forum is not maintainable.

        In order to be  amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, learned counsel for the complainant submits that as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii)  “consumer” means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration. In the present case, so far as 33 KV electricity conductor is concerned, the OP/complainant is not a consumer of electricity from that line. Admittedly, it is a high voltage line not meant for domestic supply. Therefore, we find substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the dispute raised by the complainant is not maintainable before the District Forum.

       Since we are of the considered view that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of C.P.Act, the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer dispute. Therefore, the ex parte interim order has been passed without jurisdiction.

      In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and also C.C. No. 31 of 2018 pending before the learned District Forum, Nuapada is dropped.