State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Suresh Dnyandeo Chougale on 26 September, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/12/563
(Arisen out of Order Dated 07/07/2011 in Case
No. 447/2010 of District Solapur)
1. MAHARASHTRA STATE
ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD
THROUGH EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (RURAL) JUNI MILL COMPOUND MURARJI PETH SOLAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER
MAHARASHTRA STATE
ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, MADHA, TAL MADHA
SOLAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SURESH DNYANDEO
CHOUGALE
ANJANGAON (KHE) TAL
MADHA
SOLAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MRS. Usha
S.Thakare PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj
Khamatkar Member
HON'ABLE MR. Narendra
Kawde MEMBER
PRESENT:
Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale,
Advocate for the appellants.
None present for the
respondent.
ORDER
Per Mrs.Usha S. Thakare, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by the order passed by District Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint No.447/2010 decided on 07/07/2011, org. opponents have preferred this appeal. By the order under challenge, opponents were directed to pay amount of `2 lakhs to complainant-Mr.Suresh Dnyandeo Chougale as compensation for damages to sugarcane crop within 30 days from the date of order. It was also directed that the amount of `1,000/- be paid towards cost to the complainant with 30 days from the date of order.
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal in short are as under :-
Complainant-Mr.Suresh D. Chougale has filed complaint claiming that he is a consumer of appellant and his consumer number is 34130120002630.
Sugarcane crop were cultivated in land Gat No.387/1, area 81R and in land Gat No.387/2, area 46R situated at Anjangaon, Tal. Madha. There is a transformer installed by opponent/appellant in the land of the complainant. Sparking used to take place in said transformer. It was not changed in spite of requests. On 05/03/2010 at 01.30 p.m. fire broke out in the field of the complainant/respondent due to short-circuit and sparking in D.P. Therefore, sugarcane crop standing in the field were burnt. Sugarcane Crop of the complainant were burnt due to negligence of the opponent/appellant. Complainant/respondent by filing complaint claimed amount of `3,36,500/- towards compensation along with other reliefs.
3. Opponents/appellants have filed their written version and denied all the adverse allegations against them. It is submitted that complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious. There is no cause of action to file complaint. There is no electricity connection on Gat No.387/1 and 387/2 for cultivation of land. Connection for Consumer No.34130120002630 is provided in land Gat No.95.
Respondent/complainant was in arrears of `34,700/- as on October, 2010. It is specifically denied that on 05/03/2010 there were sparks from the transformer centre at about 01.30 p.m. and therefore, sugarcane crop were burnt due to negligence of the opponents/appellants. Appellants/opponents requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. Both parties led evidence and relied on the documents. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, Learned District Forum was pleased to hold that complainant is a consumer.
Sugarcane crop owned by the complainant were burnt due to negligence of opponents/appellants. There is deficiency in services against the opponents. Therefore, complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opponents.
Ultimately, the order was passed against the opponents/appellants and they are directed to pay `2 Lakhs towards damages and `1,000/- towards cost of complaint.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants/opponents urged that the order passed by the District Forum is illegal and incorrect. Learned District Forum failed to appreciate evidence on record in its proper perspective. It has committed error in holding the complainant as consumer. Learned District Forum failed to consider that in land Gat No.387/1 and 387/2 there is no electricity connection provided by the appellants/opponents and no well is situated on the said land.
Allegation of deficiency in service was not tenable. Complainant/respondent failed to lead evidence to prove the loss suffered by him.
The order is liable to be set aside by allowing the present appeal to avoid injustice. Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has supported the order and findings of Learned District Forum and requested to dismiss the appeal for want of merit.
6. Undisputed facts are that respondent/complainant is an agriculturist. He has land Gat No.387/1 and 387/2 situated at Anjangaon, Tal. Madha Dist. Solapur. Crop of sugarcane were standing in his field at the time of incident.
Respondent/complainant has a land Gat No.95 situated at Anjangaon, Tal. Madha Dist. Solapur. In said land respondent/complainant had taken electricity connection from the opponents/appellants and his Consumer Number is 34130120002630. Crop standing in field of Gat No.95 were not burnt.
7. The appellants harped upon that sugarcane crop were not burnt because of short-circuit and there is no transformer in the centre of land of the complainant. It is brought to our knowledge by the respondent/complainant that after the incident of fire in land Gat No.387/1 and 387/2 intimation was given to Police by Mr.Pradeep S. Chougale, resident of Anjangaon. It was intimated that the fire was taken place in a field due to sparking of wires of D.P. Because of said fire, present respondent and Mr.Adhikrao D. Chougale had incurred heavy loss. Police preferred Panchanama in presence of Panchas. Damages of the respondent/complainant were calculated to `3 Lakhs. Intimation was registered in the Police Station as per A.D.No.02/2010. No independent investigation was carried out by the opponents. It is the duty of the appellants/opponents to maintain electricity connection, electric supply wires in order. Evidence adduced on behalf of complainant/respondent is sufficient to prove that respondent/complainant suffered loss and damages due to burning of standing sugarcane crop in landed property, due to sparking in electric wires of D.P. Said D.P. was installed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) i.e. appellant No.2 and duty is cast upon opponent No.1/appellant to look after the electric connection, wires, supply of energy and distribution of energy.
Record is sufficient to prove damages sustained by the complainant/respondent.
8. Now the crucial question is whether complainant/respondent in this matter can be termed as consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Consumer has been defined under the Consumer Protection Act in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) as follows:
(ii) consumer means a person who hires or avails of any service for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
9. The Indian Electricity Act 1910, defines the Consumer in Section 2(c) as:
2(c) Consumer means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee or the Government or by any person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, and it includes any persons whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person as the case may be.
10. The Indian Electricity Act 2003 has also defined the word Consumer in Section 2(15) and the said definition is also ad-verbatim same with the definition of a Consumer in Indian Electricity Act 1910.
11. The complainant/respondent did not file on record any evidence to enlighten that the meter was installed in his land Gat No.387/1 and 387/2 of Anjangaon, Tal. Madha. At the point of meter, energy is calculated, consumption of energy is calculated and consumer pays charges for the energy consumption which is recorded in the meter.
12. Learned Counsel for the opponents urged that the damages caused due to fault in the transmission lines or fault in D.P. cannot be considered as a ground for the purpose of deficiency in service to the individual consumer. The main lines or the transmission lines passes through several agricultural fields where no connection has been given to the agriculturist though line goes through D.P. However, if the short circuit takes place causing burning of the agricultural crop from said field, such an agriculturist is required to approach Civil Court.
13. The complainant failed to establish nexus between damage to sugarcane crop and meter installed in land Gat No.95. Nothing is on record to hold that sugarcane crop in Gat Nos.387/1 and 387/2 were cultivated with the help of energy recorded in the meter of land Gat No.95.
As per submissions of the respondent/complainant in his complaint that crop in surrounding fields were burnt, therefore, his sugarcane crop were burnt. The accident in question is thus not result of any deficiency in service in relation to said D.P. (Transformer).
14. These aspects have been considered by this Commission in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. V/s. Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi in Appeal No.227 & 228/2007 decided on 10/03/2010. In Para 24 of said order, it is observed as under :-
(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 upto 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 under ground 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. We find that there is no relationship of a consumer and the service provider between complainant and opponent. Dispute is not a consumer dispute.
15. In the matter of Shankar Sitaram Jadhav V/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 1994 STPL(CL) 582 NC, Honble National Commission has dealt with this issue and while dealing with similar issue observed as under :-
The deceased while trying to help someone else who had touched the live electric line got electrocuted. His death was thus, due to accident on the public road, and it had no relation to any deficiency in the supply of electricity to the petitioner herein who is a consumer in relation to the supply of electricity to his residence. The line which got snapped was not the supply line to his residence but was the general transmission line. The accident in question was thus not the result of any deficiency in service in relation to the said supply of electricity to the residence of the Petitioner.
16. In view of above rulings, it is clear that complainant/respondent cannot be termed as consumer. It is true that he has suffered loss but his matter can be dealt with in the Civil Court because he does not fall within purview of consumer. His complaint cannot be entertained before the Consumer Fora. Learned District Forum committed error while holding the complainant/respondent as a consumer. As such the order passed by Learned District Forum cannot be said to be just, legal and correct. It requires to be set aside and appeal deserves to be allowed. With this view, we pass the following order :-
-:
ORDER :-
1.
Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07/07/2011 is quashed and set aside. In the result, consumer complaint No.447/2010 stands dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 26th September 2013.
[HON'ABLE MRS. Usha S.Thakare] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member [HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER dd.