State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Milind Madhukar Junrao vs Executive Engineer Msed Co Ltd on 23 December, 2021
1 FA/295/2017
Date of filing :08.03.2017
Date of order :23.12.2021
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 295 OF 2017
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 156OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : OSMANABAD.
Milind s/o Madhukar Janrao,
R/o Wadgaon, (Siddeshwar),
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd,
Osmanabad.
2. The Dy. Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd,
Sub Div. Osmanabad.
3. The Assistant Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd,
Osmanabad.
4. The Asst. Electricity Inspector,
Electricity Inspection Section, Osmanabad.
Gapat Building, Gandhi Nagar,
Osmanabad. RESPONDENT No.1to4.
CORAM :Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv.P.M.Gaikwad for appellant,
Adv.S.N.Tandale for respondent.
2 FA/295/2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 23/12/2021) Per Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgement and order in consumer complaint 156 /2016 decided by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad, on 17 January 2017. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents 1to4 are the opponents in the complaint before District Consumer Forum.
2. It is the case of complainant that he is having agricultural land Gut no. 407 area about 1hector 70 Aar, situated at Vadgaon( Si. )Taluka and District Osmanabad. He has cultivated sugarcane crop in the area of 1 hector land in the year 2013. On 9.3.15 due to intermingling of electrical wire there occurred sparking in the D. P. situated on the boundary of the land of complainant. Due to falling of sprinkles of sparking, the residus of sugarcane crop caught with fire. Due to which his sugarcane crop, pipeline, grazing grass, also caught with fire & destroyed. It is the contention of complainant that near about 9.95 tons of burnt sugarcane was supplied to the sugar factory and remaining sugarcane crop which was caught with fire, has sustained total loss to the remaining sugarcane crop, pipeline and the grazing grass of the animals due to fire. Thus, he has assessed total loss worth Rs. 3,15,000/-. The complainant has given intimation of this incident to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd,. The Assistant Superintendent of Osmanabad Division gave visit to the spot and he has submitted his report that, due to lack of oil in the 3 FA/295/2017 distributing plant i.e. Rohitra, the dried grass would have caught with fire and out of it the sugarcane crop might have caught with fire. This is occurred due to negligence of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, & the complainant has sustained loss to his sugarcane crop. The complainant has submitted application to the Talathi of their Sajja(area). He has drawn spot panchnama. The complainant has issued notice to the opponent calling upon them to pay compensation to him. However, they did not comply said notice. Hence, he has filed the consumer complaint before District Consumer Commission Osmanabad and claim compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/-, the compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-cost of the proceedings.
3. The opponents have filed their written version to said complaint. It is at page no. 43, of appeal compilation. The opponents have denied all adverse contentions in the complaint. The complainant has made allegations of loss due to incident of sparking in D.P. The said incident has no connection with the electricity supply given to the complainant. The incident did not happened to the electric line providing supply to complainant. It is denied that the complainant has cultivated sugarcane crop. It is denied that the DP is situated in the land of complainant. It is on the boundary of Gut no. 409, at some long distance from the land Gut No.407, of complainant. Therefore, there was no question of falling sprinkles of spark on the crop of complainant. It is also denied that, the over head electric wires are passing from his land and due to its intermingling there occurred sparking in the D.P. All other allegations and claim regarding loss of sugarcane crop and mental agony or cost 4 FA/295/2017 of proceeding also denied. It is denied that in respect of the incident the complainant is consumer of the opponents. The opponents lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. On giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The learned District Consumer Forum, pleased to dismiss the complaint. Beaing aggrieved by said judgement and order, the complainant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds.
That, the District Consumer Forum failed to appreciate the evidence on record. The District forum committed error in holding that the complainant is not consumer within the purview of section 2 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The District forum failed to consider a wide scope of term consumer. The District Forum wrongly interpreted the the judgement in Rajiv Metal Works Vs. Minerals and metals Trading Corporation of India, reported in 1996( 9) SCC. 422 and arrived at wrong conclusion. The complainant is having joint family and the bill is in the name of father of complaint who is Karta of the family. The electricity supply was allotted in the name of the father of complainant. The said connection was given in the Gut No. 407, owned and possessed by the appellant. The appellant is the son of of Madhukar Dhondiba Jadhav. The District Consumer Forum also committed error in holding that the DP was situated at long distance from the land of complainant and there was no reason for loss to sugarcane crop of the complainant. The District Consumer Forum erroneously pleased to dismiss the complaint. Hence, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgement and order of District Consumer Forum.
5 FA/295/2017
5. On respective submissions of the parties following points arise for our determination. We have noted them along with our findings against it accordingly for the reasons to follow.
Sr.No. Points. Findings
1. Whether complainant and proved No.
deficiency in service on the part
of opponents?
2. Whether there requires interference No.
in the judgement and order of
District Consumer Forum?
3. What order? As per final order.
REASONING
Point Nos. 1to3 :-
6. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that, the District Consumer Forum has dismissed the complaint with the observation that, the overhead electric line is passing from Gut no.409 and for which the complainant is not covering under the defintion of consumer which is not sustainable.
7. The electric connection from gut no. 407 is in the name of his father since he was minor. The complainant is the member of joint family. In the 7/12 extract also the name of complainant is mentioned by showing his mother as a guardian. The electric connection is standing in the name of his father Madhukar being Karta of the family. The electric supply is given in the year 1989. It was not discontinued since then. There is evidence on record to show that sugarcane crop was cultivated in the area of his 1 Hector land 6 FA/295/2017 and that, his crop of sugar cane caught with fire. He has sustained loss the overhead wire is passing through his land Gut no. 407. There is D.P. situated on the boundary of Gut no.407 and Gut No.409. There is report of Talathi and Asstt. Electrical Inspector is in support of contention of complainant, and show that, there was sparking in DP due to which his sugarcane crop caught with fire, and lost in fire.
8. On the other hand the learned advocate for opponent argued that Electric Supply was given to the field Gut no.407, in the name of father of complainant. It is alleged that, the overhead wires are passing from his land Gut no. 407 are loose and due to intermingling of said wire there was sparking in DP and due to falling of sprinkles on the dry grass his sugarcane crop caught with fire. The complaint is claiming that said DP is situated in 407. In fact said DP is at a long distance from Gut no. 407. Hence, the Advocate for opponents have submitted that, the electric connection supplied in the name of father of complainant. It has no concerned with the incident of sparking due to which the complainant is claiming loss of his sugarcane crop. The complainant therefore not covering in the definition of Consumer in respect of incident occurred allegedly from sparking at D.P. It is also denied that due to intermingling of wire sparking occurred in the DP. Hence, the claim is denied.
9. The complainant has relied upon several documents such as 7/12 extract of his land Gut no. 607, panchnama drawn by Talathi, report of Asstt. Electrical Inspector, electric bill, the copy of the bill issued by sugar factory, where he has sold the burnt sugar cane of9.95 tons, the application submitted to Tahasildar intimating the 7 FA/295/2017 incident of loss of his sugarcane crop, out of fire, the copy of the notice dated 11th May, 2016 issued by complainant to opponents, claiming the compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/-. The loss allegedly to his sugar cane crop occurred due to fire out of electrical sparking in the DP.
10. We have perused respective submissions and the documents produced on record. The complainant has brought this claim against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd,, under Consumer Protection Act, for alleged deficiency on the part of opponents. The complaint is claiming that he is consumer of opponent. The opponents have supplied electric connection in their Gut no. 407. The complainant is having his joint family and the electric connection is standing in the name of his father Madhukar and therefore he is the consumer of opponent due to said supply provided to the field of complainant and his family in Gut no.407.
11. It is important to note that to bring complaint under Consumer Protection Act, it is necessary to establish the relationship between complainant as consumer and opponent as a service provider. The district consumer forum has denied the claim of complainant on the ground that the complainant is not consumer of in respect of incident occurred in the DP, and the incident did not occur to the connection given to the complainant in Gut No.407. The complaint in his pleading itself states that, the overhead wires passing from his land and those wires are intermingling. It was brought to the notice of Engineer of opponent. But the opponent did not pay any heed to it. Due to intermingling of overhead wires there was sparking in the D.P. 8 FA/295/2017 The opponents have denied that due to intermingling of wires there was sparking in the D.P. They have also denied the relationship as consumer and service provider on the ground that, the incident did not occurred to the electrical supply given to the complainant standing in the name of Madhukar. The complainant is claiming their joint family, even otherwise from 7/12 extract, it reveals that Madhukar and the complainant are the owner of the land gut No. 407, therefore, there is no substance in this observation of the District Consumer Forum to deny relationship of complainant and opponent consumer as to connection given in Gut no. 407, which is standing in the name of father of complainant.
12. However, it cannot be ignored that the pleading of the compliant itself states that, this sparking took place in the DP. Therefore, as alleged on behalf of opponent the incident did not occur with service wire with which the connection is given to the father of complainant, in the land of gut No. 407. Therefore, so far as incident of fire is concerned it is not happened to the connection allotted to complainant's father Madhukar. Therefore, there is no relationship as consumer and service provider between complainant and opponents in respect of sparking occurred in the D.P. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that, there is no relationship as consumer and service provider between the complainant and opponent in respect of DP situated on the boundary of gut No. 407 and 409. Therefore, the grievance of complainant is not coming under the definition of 'Consumer' under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9 FA/295/2017
13. The complainant has come before District consumer forum to claim compensation on the basis of alleged deficiency in service for causing loss to his crop by not paying attention towards lose overhead wires, or due to intermingling of said wire took place in the D.P.
14. Even if it is accepted that the incident of fire took place out of sparking in DP situated under boundary of Gut No. 407 and 409 and that the report of electrical engineer is showing that, there is possibility of sparking in the DP and falling of sprinkles on dried grass and out of it the crop of complainant caught with fire & the complainant sustained loss to his crop.
15. But for want of relationship as consumer and service provider, this is not the forum to decide the loss sustained to the complainant. Under such circumstances, the complainant may approach to Civil Court for the loss sustained to him due to the incident of Fire occurred out of sparking from DP, in accordance with law if it is occurred out of negligence on the part of opponent., due to not paying attention to his grievances that the overhead wires were intermingling with each other and the sparking occurred in a D. P.
16. With the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that here learned District Consumer Forum has also rightly observed that as to this incident , the complainant and opponent and they are not falling under the definition of consumer for the purposes of this claim. Therefore, there requires no interference in the judgement and order 10 FA/295/2017 of District Consumer Forum dismissing the claim of complainant. With this we answer the points accordingly and pass following order.
ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne, Member Presiding Judicial Member UNK