DAVINDER BIR SINGH vs S.D.O. H.S.E.B., DIST. KURUKSHETRA-/Opp. Party

THE true import and scope of "deficiency" in the service of the supply of electrical energy duly hired by a consumer is the significant, threshold question in this appeal.

THE facts deserve notice with brevity only as regards their relevance to the legal issue aforesaid. THE appellant had preferred the complaint before the District Forum averring that he alongwith his father was jointly running an agricultural farm at village Bhansi Majra, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. In the said farm there were several tubewells with duly sanctioned connections of electric, supply by the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board). THE transformer, therefore, was also installed on the said farm itself from where the electric energy is then transmitted to various tubewells. Admittedly the electric wires and fittings between the tubewell and the transformer is installed by the Board and inevitably the main lines supplying energy to the transformer also pass through the said farm and then go on further to other villagers. It was the case of the complainant that the electric wires of the main supply lines were lose with long spans without seperators and these also passed over some sugar fields of the complainant. On the 30th of April, 1991 at about 2 p.m. two electric wires sparked badly and these first fell on the wheat straw underneath which caught fire and the same spread to the sugar cane crop destroying two acres of area completely and damaging the rest. It was the complainant''s case that initially the officials of the Board had promised to compensate the appellant to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-, but later they procrastinated and ultimately he was compelled to seek redress from the District Forum, Kurukshetra claiming Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the negligent act of the opposite parties in performing the service for supply of electric energy.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the opposite parties/respondents, whilst controverting the claim, it was admitted in paragraph 3 that the transformer is installed in the agricultural land of the complainant and connection No. E5-13 is given to him. Paras No. 4 & 5 of the complaint with regard to the fitting between the tubewell, transformer and the main supply wires was expressly admitted as well. The rest of the allegations in the complaint were controverted.

THE parties led their evidence in support of their respective cases. However, the primal stand taken on behalf of the opposite parties/respondents was with regard to the very maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer because no service was being provided to him nor there was any defect or deficiency therein. The learned District Forum up-held the aforesaid stand on the ground that it was the main line from which the sparks fell on the wheat crop and the said main line was not used in any service that was being provided to the complainant. Consequently, it was held that no complaint lay before the District Forum and the appellants were directed to seek redress elsewhere in a Court of competent jurisdiction.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant in assailing the very brief reasoning of the District Forum contained only in paragraph 6 of the order has forcefully submitted that an overly strict and somewhat hypertechnical view has been taken of the matter. It was contended that admittedly the complainant had a sanctioned electric connection No. E5-13 for supply of electricity by the Board to his tubewells. It was then pointed out that in view of the clear-cut and categoric admissions in Paras 3 to 5 of the written statement, factually it becomes clear that the main electric lines feeding the transformer and the tubewells were admittedly installed on the land of the complainant and were a necessary and integral part of the supply system of electric energy for the complainant''s farm. Consequently there was a patent deficiency both in the nature and manner of the performance of the service for supply of electric energy because the defective wires had sparked to such an extent so as to lead to a fire and ignite the wheat straw underneath which later on spread to cause greater damage to the sugar cane crop. It was the basic contention that there cannot be any finical bifurcation of electric wires betwixt the transformer and the tubewells and those between the main line (particularly those on the complainant''s land itself) to the transformer. We find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Counsel. It is obviously desirable to first clear the factual background. From the clear admissions made in the written statement it is manifest that several tubewells on the complainant farm with sanctioned electric connections were being supplied energy through the transformer admittedly installed on the said land which in turn was energised from the main supply line again running on die complainant''s agricultural land. It is further common ground that the wire-fitting between the tubewell and the transformer was installed by the Board and equally the main supply wires were maintained by it. Against the aforesaid background the matter has to be examined in the light of the statutory provisions. Section 2(1)(g) and (o) defines "deficiency" and "service" for the purpose of the Act in the following terms:- (g): "Deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service; (o): "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;"

IN the light of the above, there is no manner of doubt that the supply of electrical energy is an expressly designated service within the meaning of the Act nor is it in doubt that on the admitted facts the appellant had duly hired the services of the supply of electrical energy from the Board by securing sanctioned connections for his tubewells. Consequently, he would be a consumer having hired the service of the supply of electrical energy under the statute. It bears repetition that herein the mainline wires were also fixed and running on the land of the complainant for providing electric current to the transformer (again installed on the land of the complainant himself) which further distributed the supply to the other tubewells. The whole lay-out of the lines including the main line on the land of the complainant was thus a part and parcel of one single integrated system for the supply of electric energy ultimately to the tubewells for lifting water therefrom. Any distinction drawn betwixt the same electrical wire system from the transformer to the tubewell as against those supplying the said transformer from the main line running on the complainant''s land itself would be somewhat finical. The main lines and in particular those on the premises of the appellant were fundamental and necessary adjunct for energising what we have described above as a single integrated system for the purpose of the supply of electric energy by the Board.

WHAT then needs highlighting is the fact that the statute defines "deficiency" in very wide ranging terms. Any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy either in the quality nature and manner of performance is within the ambit of the law. Therefore, in the context of the supply of electric energy if defective wires in the system for supplying the same spark to an extent as to lead to a fire and igniting, the wheat straw etc., the same would plainly be within the meaning of a deficiency in the supply of electrical energy to a consumer. Once it has been found as above, there would seem little doubt that herein on the allegations made by the complainant, if established there would be a deficiency in the nature and manner of performance in the supply of electrical energy which the appellant had admittedly hired for a consideration. The fact that the electrical wires threw sparks therefrom to an extent as to alight the wheat straw under-neath (if conclusively established) would be proof positive of imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in relation to the hiring of services contracted by the Board with its customers.

The learned District Forum has taken the view that the main line was not used for any service that was being provided to the complainant. With respect this appears to be an overly constricted conclusion in the light of our finding aforesaid that the main lines atleast on the premises of the appellant were a part and parcel of a single integrated system for the supply of electrical energy to the consumer. It would seem that the question was not well presented before the District Forum and the learned Counsel were somewhat remiss in presenting the issue.

EVEN otherwise we are equally inclined to the view that even if two well-matched constructions were possible the balance has to be tilted in favour of the consumer. It has now been repeatedly held that the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficient statute for the purpose of protecting the rights of the citizens. The sound canons of construction with regard to such a statute is that it must be construed liberally and not in a constricted manner. As is not unusual somewhat well-matched interpretations or closely balanced views may well be possible. In such a situation the golden rule of interpretation under this Act would be that the issue has to be tilted in favour of the consumer rather than be streched against him. To conclude we would hold that the complainant on the basis of his averments if established would come squarely within the ambit of a consumer who had hired the supply of electrical energy from the Board. If he is in a position to establish his case that the source of the fire and damage to his sugar cane crop was the sparking of defective electrical wires on his premises supplying electricity to his tubewells, the matter would come squarely within the ambit of deficiency in service under the Act. His complaint would thus be maintainable and deserve a trial on merits.

WE are extremely chary to prolong the consumer disputes by orders of remand. Herein however, there is no choice because the merits of the case have not been adverted to at all inevitably because of the adverse finding on maintainability. We are constrained to allow this appeal and set aside the order. We direct that the case may now be tried and adjudicate on merits. In view of the somewhat ticklish question involved, we will leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.