CHAIRMAN, A.P.S.E. BOARD vs KOTI VIJAYALAKSHMI

THESE two appeals arise out of an order in CD. No. 83/91. By that order in the Consumer Dispute Case, the District Forum directed the Opp. Party i.e. the A.P. State Electricity Board to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant. The A.P. State Electricity Board preferred C.D.A. No. 246/91 contending that they are not liable to pay any compensation and the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant filed C.D.A. No. 319/91 claiming enhancement of compensation amount Rs. 75,000/-.

SINCE common questions arise for consideration in these two appeals, they are being disposed of together. It is not in dispute that the complainant''s husband while crossing the field of Bulla Pyda Rao with a load of grass on his head came into contact with a live electric wire and died on the spot. The Opp. Parties admitted that due to wear and tear and rust the ring attached to stay wire became weak and got detached and the live wire was found hanging downwards at a height of about one feet above the ground level. It is the case of the Electricity Board that the husband of the complainant is also negligent in not noticing the live wire. They also took the plea that there was no negligence on their part and that the husband of the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. No consideration was paid by the complainant''s husband for rendering any service. Hence it cannot be said that there is any deficiency or negligence in the service.

The District Forum held that the consideration compromises of various taxes paid by the citizens to the Government, a portion of which was diverted to A.P.S.E.B., in the shape of grants, subsidies and loans and that therefore there was consideration and deficiency in service. The District Forum awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. In the same order it also directed three months'' time to pay in default they are liable for punishment under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

IN the appeal preferred by the Electricity Board it is submitted that the complainant is not a consumer and no consideration was paid to the Electricity Board and no service was rendered. We see sufficient force in the aforesaid contention. Evidently, no consideration was paid to the Electricity Board as the complainant or her husband have power connection. Hence it cannot be said that the Opp. Party agreed to render any service to the complainant or her husband. The reasoning of the District Forum consideration consists of various taxes paid by the citizens out of which Electricity Board was given grants and subsidies by the Government cannot be said to be consideration contemplated within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It has been held that mere payment of taxes will not constitute consideration for rendering any particular service to tax payer. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the reasoning of the District Forum in this regard. We are of the view that there was no consideration paid by the complainant or her husband for rendering any service by the Electricity Board. We, therefore, hold that the complainant or her husband is not a consumer. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded it is submitted by Sri. V. Gourisankar Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum ought to have granted compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and not Rs. 25,000/-. As we have taken the view that the complainant or her husband is not a consumer, it is not necessary to go into the question of quantum of compensation. Even otherwise, we are satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case that the deceased is an agricultural collie earning Rs. 10/- and was aged 40 Yrs. at the time of accident the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the District Forum is reasonable.

HENCE we held that the complainant or her husband is not a consumer the complaint itself it not maintainable. During pendency of the appeal, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be deposited and the complainant was permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing security. According to the Counsel the amount was deposited and the complainant withdrew the same. Sri V. Gourisankar Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the circumstances that the deceased has left behind, an aged mother, and also a girl aged 10 years, the Opp. Party may be directed to make some ex-gratia payment. Having heard both the sides, we are satisfied that the ends of justice will be met by directing the Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as ex-gratia payment to the complainant. Since an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was already deposited in the District Forum and withdrawn by the complainant, we direct payment of a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- by the Electricity Board to the complainant within a period of two months from today. In the result, the appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant, as an ex-gratia payment. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of accordingly.