DEPUTY DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, A.P.S.E.B. vs S. RAMULA

THE opposite party in C.D. No. 9 of 1989 before the District Forum, Adilabad is the THE case of the complainant is that he is eaking out his livelihood by selling milk from four she-Buffalos. On 11.8.1989 about 6.00 p.m. the current wire was cut and fell near his house. One she-buffalo came in touch with the fallen current wire and died due to sudden shock. Although the informed by telephone to the opposite party, i.e., Electricity Board, Adilabad, there was no response. Again on the next day he called on the Electricity Board people on phone, but nobody came. At about 12.00 noon on 12.8.1989, he came to know that some officials, came and replaced the fallen wire by a new wire and went a way. THEreafter, the complainant went to the Police Station. But the police advised him to file a case in the Court. He, therefore, filed a complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- from the opposite party.

IN the counter, it was stated that the facts alleged in the complaint did not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such, no compensation can be granted to the complainant for the loss of she-Buffalo. The District Forum framed three points for consideration, that is: (i) Whether the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is applicable to the instant case of the complainant? (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount? (iii) To what relief?

It held that the complainant becomes the beneficiary and is a resident of Adilabad Municipality and residing within the Municipal limits and the opposite party becomes a trader serving Adilabad citizens and that, therefore, he comes within the purview of the Consumer Dispute under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On point No. 2, it held that the she-Buffalo of the complainant died due to sheer negligence of the opposite party and the opposite party failed to take necessary steps immediately after rain. It, is, therefore, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- with 12% interest.

AGGRIEVED by the same, this appeal was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was directed to be deposited in the District Forum and the same is still lying with the District Forum. The Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that the claim made does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the complainant is not a consumer and hence there is no deficiency of service rendered so far as the power connection to his house concerned. Even assuming the she-buffalo died due to electrocution, it is due to circumstances beyond the control of the Electricity Board. Reliance is placed on a decision Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Smt. Pani, II (1991) CPJ 127 wherein, on the Rajasthan State Commission held that on similar circumstances, the death of she buffalo by electrouction that the complainant is not a consumer and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to award compensation. He, therefore, submitted that the complainant is not a consumer and the complainant itself is not maintainable. In the instant case, since there was already a direction to deposit Rs. 2,000/- and having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the complainant is dependent on the sale of milk from the she-buffalo, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the District Forum, we consider it appropriate that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) out of Rs. 2,000/- in deposit, be paid to the complainant as an ex-gratia payment.

IN the result, the appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Appeal disposed of.