EXECUTIVE ENGINEER vs NABAKISHORE TARAI

THIS appeal arises out of the final order passed in C.D. Case No. 118 of 1992 by the District Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar. The opposite parties in the said case are the appellants in this appeal. The respondent as complainant filed the aforesaid case claiming compensation of Rs. 38,000/- as per the break-up given in para 21 of the complaint petition. His case is that he had been running a printing press named as Sri Lokanath Press at Balugaon in a rented house belonging to one Laxmidhar Biswal. The allegations contained in the application are that the electrical Substation of Balugaon is near the rooms where the Press is operated and the main transformer is placed just 15'' away from the said Press. He has alleged that the main connection of the Substation to the transformer passes over the roof of the Press which is a thatched one. He claims to have raised protests for the sparks emanating from the transformer apprehending that it may be the cause of the house being gutted with fire. But the authorities did not pay any heed. The assertion of the complainant is that on 10.8.90 at about 2 a.m. at night-fall the roof of the Press was burnt due to fire emanating from the electrical Sub-station situated near the rooms which was extinguished by the fire brigade. The loss of property due to fire has been certified to be Rs. 18,000/- by the Fire Station Officer. Similarly, the certificate from the Tahasildar, Banpur in Misc. Certificate Case No. 60 of 1991 shows the same amount. According to the complainant the present appellants are liable to pay the compensation for the loss caused to him due to fire. That apart, his further case is that he is the consumer of electricity for running the Press though the meter stands in the room of the owner of the house. The electric service was discontinued from 2.4.91 to 16.10.91 for which the Press could not function. He deposited a sum of Rs. 2,018/- on 15.10.91 whereafter service connection was given to the Press on 17.10.1991. He has claimed Rs. 13,000/- for the loss caused by non-functioning of the press due to want of electricity for a period of six months and 15 days. That apart he has prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as pecuniary loss. The present appellants filed a show cause denying their liability before the District Forum. Their stand was that fire was not due to any spark either from the transformer or from the Sub-station. They further indicated that it might be due to lightening by which some of the component parts of their Sub-station were damaged. It was also anticipated that the fire might have been caused due to defect in the internal wiring system in the house.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties and considering all the materials placed before it, came to a conclusion that the possibility of lightning being the cause of the fire or the defective internal wiring being the cause thereof is remote which is not at all acceptable specially when the Electricity Board did not produce any document to show the extent of damages caused in their Sub-station due to lightning. THE District Forum ultimately concluded that the house was gutted by accidental fire caused by sparking due to mis-conductance of energy supplied by the line connecting the Sub-station and the transformer which was due to gross negligence of the opposite parties, that is, the present appellants. So far as the loss said to have been caused to the complainant on account of discontinuance of the supply of electricity it was contended by the present appellants that the matter stands in the name of one Laxmidhar Biswal and therefore the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Act was not accepted by the District Forum. THE District Forum held that the complainant was beneficiary and therefore a consumer within the meaning of the Act. It further held that the present appellants cannot be said to be guilty of deficiency in service so far as disconnection of electrical energy is concerned inasmuch as the line was disconnected on account of non-payment of the consumption charges. It ultimately allowed a compensation of Rs. 18,000/- representing to loss occasioned by the fire and awarded a cost of Rs. 1,000/- for the mental agony and Rs. 200/- as cost of litigation. Hence this appeal. It has been urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the award of compensation for the loss said to have been occasioned cannot be attributed to the deficiency in service on the part of the present appellants. He has also argued that the finding of the learned District Forum that the electric spark was the cause of the house being gutted with fire is without any basis and evidence. His submission is that so far as the claim for compensation or the damages said to have been caused by fire is not claimable before the Consumer Forum as it does not relate to his being a consumer of electricity. He, however, argued that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition given in the Act and therefore, the case was not entertainable.

We have also heard the learned Counsel for the respondent at length. According to him by elimination of different theories advanced to be the cause of the accidental fire, the only possibility for the fire can be said to be the sparking emanating from the transformer and the Sub-station about which the complainant had been making complaints long before the incident. It has also been urged that there an be no doubt about the quantum of loss inasmuch as different authorities have come to the same conclusion and the same has not been rebutted by any acceptable evidence. His ultimate argument is that he is a consumer as defined in the Act and therefore, the case was maintainable.

HAVING given our anxious thought to all the points that were argued before us, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Act in respect of the consumption of electricity to the premises where he was running the business. Admittedly the matter stood in the name of the owner of the house but all the same he was using the electricity from the said meter. Whatever charges were given for it whether paid by him or by the owner he becomes a beneficiary inasmuch as he was a tenant in respect of the premises where the Press was running. The District Forum, however, did not allow any compensation for discontinuance of supply of electricity for the reason that the consumption charges were not paid and the outstanding arrears demanded by the Board were not paid. The complainant has also not preferred any appeal against the refusal of compensation on that account. So this aspect of the matter needs no further elaboration or discussion. The main question that has been urged before us by the present appellants is as to whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the loss said to have been sustained by him by the fire which gutted the rooms in which the press was running. Admittedly case of the complainant in the complaint petition itself was that the main connection of the Sub-station of the transformer passed over the roof of the Press. Assuming for the sake of argument that the fire broke due to mis-conductance of electrical energy through the overhead lines and for that reason the complainant sustained any loss, the same cannot be said to be the grievance of a consumer as defined in the Act. The loss due to fire emanating from the line which passed over the roof of the rooms in question connecting the Sub-station to the transformer is not the line which supplies electricity to the premises occupied by the Press. According to the law of torts, the complainant may be entitled to compensation from the Board if he proves that due to inaction or negligence of the appellants he has suffered any loss. But such a claim cannot be entertained by a Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act inasmuch as the loss sustained due to the aforesaid cause will not be the loss suffered by a consumer. The complainant may be a consumer of electricity so far as the supply of electrical energy to his premises is concerned, but he cannot be considered as a consumer for all other purposes even with relation to the Electricity Board if the loss was occasioned independent of the supply of electricity to his premises. In that view of the matter, his claim for compensation due to fire in the aforesaid premises is not tenable before a Consumer Forum. We, however, do not express any opinion as to the genuineness of his claim or his entitlement to damages said to have been suffered by him. We merely express our inability to entertain the claim of this nature which cannot be said to be a consumer dispute within the meaning of the Act. In view of what we have held in the preceding paragraphs, the other question raised in this appeal need not be gone into. In the result, we will allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the District Forum, but in the facts of this case without any costs. Appeal allowed.