HEMALATHA vs A.P.S.E.B.

THIS complaint has been preferred by an unfortunate girl of 16 years who was grievously injured by electric shock caused to her by a low- lying over-head High Tension Transmission line passing over the terrace of a flat in Plot No. 10 in Survey No. 586 (part) situated in front of Kondamadugu cross roads in Hyderabad- Warangal Highway near Bibinagar when she happened to be on that terrace at about 3.00 p.m. on 15.7.1993. The High Tension Transmission line, which was responsible for causing the electric shock to the complainant, was not a supply line for the flat in which she happened to be at that time. If a supply line caused the electric shock there would not have been the question whether the complainant was a consumer, at the relevant time, in relation to the A.P. State Electricity Board which is undoubtedly under an obligation to lay High Tension Transmission lines so that there is no possibility whatsoever for such accidents to occur.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant submits that even though the particular High Tension Electric Transmission line may not be supplying energy to the flat in question it would certainly be the source of the energy to the step down transformer from which the electrical energy at low tension at requisite voltage was being supplied to the flat in question and therefore interpreting the definition of ''consumer'' and ''service'' respectively under Section 2(1)(d) and (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act'' for short) in a wider sense and keeping in view the objects of the Act, it has to be held that the present complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals constituted under the Act to provide speedy justice to the consumers. We are unable to agree. Even giving the widest amplitude to the definition of the expression ''consumer'' under Section 2(1)(d), in the present case we do not find any connection between High Tension Transmission line running over the terrace of the flat in question and the complainant such as would make her a consumer, when it is not in dispute that those lines were not in any way connected with the supply of energy for consideration to the flat in question under the supply agreement with the board at the usual low tension at which energy is supplied for domestic use. Even looking at the definition of ''service'' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it cannot be said that the high tension or high voltage transmission line in question was even in the remotest sense a facility in connection with supply of electrical energy to the flat in question. No such connection is even asserted in the complaint.

Complainant may raise a claim in tort for any negligence established against the Board in the laying of the High Tension Transmission lines. The learned Counsel for the complainant states that the complainant already had laid a suit in the Civil Court claiming damages in tort.

WE are therefore satisfied that the claim made by the complainant in this C.D. is not within the competence of this Commission. The C.D. is therefore dismissed. Complaint dismissed.