H.S.E.B. vs CHITTAR SINGH

THIS appeal is concluded in favour of the appellant. Haryana State Electricity Board by the decision of this Commission in I (1991) CPJ 115, Prof. Inderjit Kumar and Others v. Haryana State Electricity Board. It consequently suffices to notice the facts in the barest outline.

ON the complainant-respondent''s own showing, he is a poor laborer belonging to village Bushana and owned a murrah buffalo from the sale of whose milk he used to earn his livelihood. It was the case that this was the only source of his income. ON the morning of 17-8-1992, the said buffalo was grazing grass in the complainant''s'' field which according to him adjoins the field of Wazir Chand which is separated by a footpath betwixt the two. It was alleged that in the field of the said Wazir Chand, an electric pole was standing whose support wire was fixed alongwith the said foot path. The buffalo apparently strayed near the said pole and coming in contact with the support-wire and was electrocutioned because these were charged with electricity. For this negligence and poor maintenance of the electricity poles, the complainant first sought redress from the officials of the appellant-department and not getting the same knocked at the doors of the District Forum. Strenuously defending the complaint, the board took up a firm preliminary jurisdictional objection that the respondent did not fall in the definition of Consumer and hence has no locus standi to maintain the complaint. ON merits also, the allegations were controverter. The District Forum somewhat summarily has skirted the issue of maintainability of the complaint and its jurisdiction and thereafter proceeded forthwith to grant relief by way of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,000/- only.

Mr. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously assailed the order under appeal. Our attention was drawn to the preliminary objection No. 1 in the reply firmly alleging that the respondent was not a consumer. In the grounds of appeal it has been in term averred that the issue was urged and pressed on behalf of the appellant but in the order there is no reference or finding on this legal point. It was the submission that on the Complainant-respondent''s own averment, he cannot possibly come within the ambit of consumer.

THERE is patent merit in the submission aforesaid. Reference to the affidavit of the Complainant on the record would show that it was not even remotely alleged that he was in any way a consumer of electricity. It bears repetition that his own stand was that he was a poor laborer depending upon the sale of milk for his livelihood and any reference to even having any electric connection is conspicuous by its absence. Clearly enough, the complainant at the very highest could claim some hiring of the electricity service, but has obviously no connection with any defective goods. Once it was not even alleged that the complainant-respondent was the holder of any electricity connection and consequently a consumer who had hired this service, he had not the least locus standi as such within the consumer jurisdiction. It is somewhat elementary that in the present context, he could claim relief only on the ground of any deficiency in the services of supply of electric energy which on the respondent''s own showing was not even remotely the case. Mr. Jaswant Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent faced with the uphill task of supporting the untenable case had attempted to argue that the mere fact that the buffalo had died of electrocution was sufficient to grant relief to the respondent. The argument is only to be noticed and rejected. Whatever remedy or relief the respondent may have under the Law of Tort, if any; it is plain that he is none whatsoever within this jurisdiction when admittedly it was not even his case that he was a consumer of electricity.

THOUGH the matter is absolutely plain on principle, there is also the authority of Prof. Inderjit Kumar v. H.S.E.B., a case of this Commission in I (1991) CPJ 115 (supra). Therein also relief was sought on the ground of electricity shock suffered by a child from over-hanging wires. After an exhaustive discussion, it was concluded that the complainants therein were not consumers at all because none of them drew electrical energy from the said electricity line. This decision obviously covers the present one also on all fours. For the foregoing reasons, it has to be necessarily held that the complainant-respondent does not come within the definition of consumer under the Act. Consequently, he had no locus-standi to maintain the complaint which must necessarily be dismissed. This appeal, is hereby allowed and we are constrained to set-aside the order of the District Forum. Never the less we would not wish to burden the respondent-consumer with any costs. Appeal allowed.