State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Execu Engin M S E D Co Ltd vs Sanjay Panditrao Surwase on 7 July, 2021
1 FA/496/2017
Date of filing :08.06.2017
Date of order :07.07.2021
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 496 OF 2017
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 87 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PARBHANI.
1. The Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd,
Division Office, Parbhnai.
2. Assistant Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd,
O & M Division, Selu(Urban), Tq.Selu, Dist.Parbhani.
3. Jr.Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd,
Selu(Urban), Tq.Selu, Dist.Parbhani.
4. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd,
Chief Office, Prakash Gad, Plot No.G-9,
Bandra East, Mumbai, 400051,
Through Secretary, (MSEDCL) APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Sanjay Panditrao Survase,
R/o Phule Nagar, Selu, Tq.Selu, Dist.Parbhani. RESPONDENT
CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv. S.N.Tandale for appellants,
Adv. R.P.Surwase for respondent.
2 FA/496/2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 07/07/2021) Per Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is arising out of judgment and order in Consumer case No.87/2016 decided by District Consumer Forum, Parbhani on 17.4.2017. The appellants are the respondents and the respondent is the original complainant in the complaint before District Consumer Forum. They are hereinafter referred as per their status in the complaint before District Consumer Forum.
2. It is the case of complainant that he is the Karta of joint family and they are having land survey number 204/1 admeasuring about 3 acre 48 R. the complainant is consumer of opponent Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, (in short MSEDCL) bearing consumer number 532530099247 and he has taken electric connection from opponent for irrigation purpose in the said land. He planted sugar case crop in his 5 acre land in the year 2014-2015. He has also fixed pipes and drip irrigation system in the said land.
3. On 23.4.2015 there was sparking from electric wire due to which his sugar cane crop caught with fire and drip irrigation system and pipes also caught with fire and he has sustained loss of Rs.5,34,389/-. He has informed this incident to police station Selu, Agriculture Officer and Tahasildar of Selu and Jr.Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd,. Thereupon, Police and Talathi visited the spot and they have carried panchanama. The complainant has also submitted application to electric inspector on 3 FA/496/2017 08.10.2015 for enquiry and report. The electrical Engineer visited the spot and also made enquiry and he has submitted report to MSEDCL on 15.12.2017. It is alleged by the complainant that, the transformer is installed by the MSEDCL at the centre of his land. The incident occurred due to mingling of electric wire. Prior to that the complainant has informed the opponent that the electric wire became loose. If the opponent would have taken cognisance within time the incident would have been avoided. This incident occurred due to negligence on the part of opponents. Hence, the complainant has filed consumer complaint before District Consumer Forum and claimed Rs.5,34,389/- towards compensation and cost of the proceeding.
4. The opponents MSEDCL filed its reply to said complaint. The copy of said reply is at page No.60 to 69 of the appeal compilation. The opponents denied all allegations made by the complainant against officials of opponents. In respect of all the alleged incident there is no relation as consumer and service provider between complainant and opponents. It is also denied that the complainant planted sugar case crop in the area of 5 acre of his land and he has sustained loss to said sugar cane crop and his irrigation system and pipes due to negligence of opponents. The opponents have denied the claim and allegation made in the complaint and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The District Consumer Forum after giving opportunity to the parties of hearing pleased to allow the complaint thereby directing the opponents MSEDCL to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards 4 FA/496/2017 the damages and Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of proceeding.
6. Being aggrieved by said order the opponents MSEDCL has preferred this appeal on the following grounds.
That, the order passed by District Consumer Forum is arbitrary and without properly assessing the documentary evidence. The District Consumer Forum has committed grave mistake in holding that, MSEDCL is negligent and have not taken proper care and caution about the electric line passing overhead on the land of complainant. The District Consumer Forum has passed the order to pay the compensation without any legal footing. Talathi or police authority have not filed any affidavit in respect of panchanama. The police authority and Talathi have prepared documents without following mandatory provision.
7. It is also submitted on behalf of appellant that, complainant is not consumer of opponent Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, in respect of 11KV line. The alleged incident occurred on 11 KV line due to wind and sparking. This fact has mentioned in the report of electric inspector. However, it is not considered by District Consumer Forum. As the complainant is not consumer of high tension electric line the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Consumer Forum has committed error in holding that the opponent MSEDCL is responsible for damages to the sugar cane crop and the irrigation pipes of the complainant. Hence, the opponent Maharashtra State Electricity 5 FA/496/2017 Distribution Co.Ltd, has prayed for setting aside the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum.
8. Heard advocates for the parties finally and also perused respective submissions from record. On the basis of respective submissions the 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 there is relationship as No.
consumer and service provider
between the parties in respect
of the alleged incident?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled No.
for damages as claimed?
3. Whether there requires interference Yes.
in the judgement and order
of district forum?
4. what order? As per final order.
Reasons
9. Point Nos.1to3 :- The learned advocate for the opponent argued that the complainant is claiming that due to falling of sprinkles of sparking from overhead LT line in his land the pachat of sugarcane caught with fire and fire spread in the area of 5 acres of his land and his crop of sugarcane and irrigation system and pipes burnt and he sustained loss of Rs. 5,34,389/-. The learned advocate for opponent further argued that in their written statement the opponents have raised objection that there is no relationship as 6 FA/496/2017 consumer and service provider in respect of the incident of fire which took please due to sparking on 11KV wire. It is not occurred due to sparking on the wire supplying electricity to the complainant. Therefore this incident is not covering under the definition of sec 2(1)(d)(2) of consumer protection act the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.
10. The learned Advocate for complainant has argued that that the DP providing electricity is situated at the centre of the field of complainant from which he is supplied the electricity to his field survey number 204/1 . The complainant has produced the copies of panchanamas drawn by Tahsildar and police. There is also report of electrical engineer supporting the case of complainant. These documents are showing that there is relationship as consumer and service provider between complainant& opponent No.1. To that extent the complainant supported the judgement of District Forum. However, according to complainant's Advocate the quantum which is awarded by District Forum is not adequate. The District Forum has not considered his documents showing the loss sustained by the complainant
11. It is not disputed by opponents that the complainant is having land survey number 204/1. And that the opponent MSEDCL has supplied electric connection to the complainant in the said land. However, it is to be seen whether the incident took place due to sparking with the electricity supply through service wire with which the complainant is supplied the connection. Admittedly overhead wire of 11KV is passing through passing from the land of complainant 7 FA/496/2017 and the incident of sparking took place on 11 KV line. It happened due to mingling of wire of 11 KV line. The said incident occurred near cut point of pole, due to mangling of wire, at the distance of 50 feet from transformer. It happened when where is blowing of wind.
12. The learned advocate for the opponent placed Reliance upon judgement of state consumer Commission Mumbai in FA/227/2007 in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Vs Babulal Kuber Chandra Gandhi and the judgement of this Commission in FA/729/2017 in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Vs. Mahadevrao Narayanro Deshmukh.
13. So far as the relationship of complainant and opponent in respect of the transaction in question is concerned, the complainant relied upon the 7/12 extract of land, electricity bill and the panchanama drawn by police and Tahasildar and report of electrical enginer, at page No. 37,38 and 51to57 respectively. The complainant also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissionm Mumbai in FA/16/243 , Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Vs. Chandrakant Byappa Lenrdare decided on 28th Aug. 2018.
14. It is not disputed that, complainant is agriculturist. He is having land Gut.No. 204/1 of his joint family and he has obtained electric connection in S.No. 204/1, from, MSEDCL to irrigation the said land and that the consumer number of said connection is as 532530038247. The incident as per panchanama produced at page 8 FA/496/2017 No.49 & 55 is at the distance of 50 feet from DP near cut point of pole on 11 KV wire, due to sparking which happened out of wind and sparking fell down on pachat (Residues of sugar cane crop) of sugar cane crop and it spread on sugar cane of complainant in the S.No. 204/1 due to wind. Said sugar cane was in the area of 4 acres of land of complainant in Gut No.204/1.
15. We have also gone through the report of MSEDCL wherein it is mentioned that there is land gut No. 401/1 of complainant in Selu Shiwar in 11 KV overhead wire of MSEDCL is passing from the land of complainant. As there is sparking between the wires due to mingling of wire due to wind. The arrangement of guarding was made as these wires were carrying electricity and there was sufficient distance between the poles, and there was some zole (loosening of wires). The sparking took place due to mingling of wires and the pachat of sugar cane caught with fire and due to wind the said fire spread over sugar cane crop in the land of the complainant and he has sustained loss to the crop of sugar cane and some pipes of irrigation system.
16. It is true that, it is not disputed that incident occurred on 23.4.2015. But according to opponent due to distance between pole of wire zole/loosening of wire was caused and there was mingling of wire, due to wind, it is happed on 11 KV line and not on the line from where the supply or service is provide to connection of complainant. Hence, it is not covering under the definition of consumer in respect of 11 KV line from where the supply is provided to transformer (DP).
9 FA/496/2017
17. Thus, as discussed earlier the complainant is not covering U/sec.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, as the incident of sparking took place on 11 KV line and not taken place to the connection of complainant from where he is provided supply/connection to his field G.No.204/1. Hence, reliance is rightly placed by opponent on judgment of Hon'ble State Commission, Mumbai in F.A.No. 227/2007 in MSEDCL Vs. Babulal Kuberchand Ghandi decided on 10/03/2010 wherein Hon'ble Lordship has observed in para No.24 as follows.
"(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 up to 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 underground 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.
10 FA/496/2017 We find that there is no relationship of a consumer and the service provider between complainant and opponent. Dispute is not a consumer dispute."
18. This Commission has also adopted the aforesaid finding in several cases, before this Commission, in similar facts and circumstances of the case.
19. The complainant has also placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai in FA/243/16 in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Vs Shri.Chandrakant Tyappal Lendave, decided on 28.8.2018. However, facts and circumstances of said judgment are distinguishing, wherein complaint was in respect of electric supply connection provided to complainant in gut No.206 for irrigating land situated at Fetewde Tq.Mangalvedha, Dist.Solapur for which complainant was paying bills in respect of said electricity meter and said DP was not maintain and wherein office of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, held negligent as observed in para 9 of said judgment.
20. The fact of case in hand is covering under the ratio laid down of the judgment in Babulal Kuberchand Ghandi case and it is certainly distinguishing from the case relied upon by the complainant. This complaint has also decided the case in similar fact and circumstances of case in hand like judgment in FA NO.729/2017 decided on 20.12.2018 by this Commission.
11 FA/496/2017
21. Therefore, with the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that in the case in hand unfortunately the incident causing damage to the crop and irrigation system of complainant, took place in the field Gut No. 204/1, but is not the case covering within the definition of 'Consumer' to cover it under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, there is remedy to complainant available in Civil Court and not before this Forum. We therefore, hold that the District Consumer Forum has not considered the main objection raised by opponent MSEDCL that, the incident in question is not falling under the definition of consumer in respect of 11 KV wire. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for damages under the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency in service on the part of complainant out of relationship as consumer and service provider. Hence, there requires interference in finding of District Consumer Forum and said judgment needs to be set aside. We therefore, answer the points accordingly and pass following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The judgment and order in C.C.No.87/2016 decided by District Consumer Forum on 17.04.2017 is hereby set aside and the complaint No.C.C. 87/2016 is hereby dismissed.
3. Parties to bear their own costs.
Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne,
12 FA/496/2017
Member Presiding Judicial Member
UNK