J U D G E M E N T

          Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

          Complainant TrinathChirangul has filed this case against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs for not paying the compensation arising out of the death of his cows and praying therein for direction to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs. 16,70,000/- and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death alongwith cost of litigation.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case was that the complainant was the owner of two cows who died on 31.05.2017 at about 07.00 AM due to electrocution while going for grazing. The matter was reported to Tarbod outpost and has recorded in SDE No. 02 dated 31.05.2017 and  the deceased cows were sent for postmortem and after postmortem the veterinary officer, Komna opined that the death is due to electrocution. The cows were only source of his income and was high yielding in nature were aged about 5 years at the time of electrocution. Both the cows were pregnant at the time of death. The complainant is a farmer and earning his livelihood out of selling of milk from the cows. One cow was producing 12 ltrs of milk and another cow producing 10 ltrs of milk. The complainant was earning Rs. 360/- from the white cow and Rs. 300/- from the black cow and he was expecting 10 nos. of calves from both the cows whose minimum cost Rs. 30,000/- per unit. Due to death of the cows he lost his bread and butter and being a Hindu by religion he had very close love and affection to the cows and he was worshiping the cows and goddess Kamadhenu. As his income has lost and his sentiment was hurt due to the negligence of the supervision and maintenance of the electric line they are liable to compensate the complainant and therefore he has claimed compensation of Rs. 16,70,000/- under different head.

2.           After receipt of notice the OPs appeared through their advocate and filed their written statement. In their written statement they challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission to sit over the matter. It is pleaded that allegation of electrocution of cows coming with electrocution death required through investigation with positive evidence which can be done in a fact finding trial court. The complainant was not availing service by payment or by promise thereof to enjoy the status of a consumer. It is submitted that there was no snapping report of electrocution and the breaker installed in the grid must have dropped & could not have stand unless and until removal from the earth. So the falsity of the claim can be ascertain from this fact. The complainant is silent about service of notice under section 161 of the Electricity Act 2003 which is mandatory in nature. If the complainant had lodged any complaint with the OPs steps could have been notified to the government. Therefore, they pray for the dismissal of the case with cost.

3.           The most important question relating to the case whether the complainant is a consumer or not?

In the present case the allegation regarding the death of the cows is due to electrocution and the compensation arising out of the lost sustained by the complainant. Since no consideration has passed from the complainant to the OPs to provide safety to his cows the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer. As there is no evidence for hiring or availing service from the OPs on payment of consideration in our opinion he is not a consumer and the case is not maintainable before this Commission and hence the order.

ORDER

The complainant petition is dismissed on contest. The complainant is at liberty to avail the appropriate forum for the loss sustained by him. Parties to bear their own cost.