PREM PAL SAINI vs S.D.O., H.S.E.B.

THIS appeal is concluded in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Commission in II (1992) CPJ 698 ''Davinder Bir Singh v. S.D.O., H.S.E.B. District Kurukshetra''. It, therefore, suffices to notice the facts and merits with utmost brevity.

THE appellant-consumer is a land holder carrying on agriculture in village Saran and has installed a tubewell which admittedly was being run by electricity supplied by the respondent Board after the release of a sanctioned connection in his favour. THE transformer of the Board from which the electricity wires emanate and reach to the complainant''s tubewell is fixed immediately on the boundry of his land. THE primal allegation was that the cable wires of the transformer were naked and apparently loose and on contact used to spark persistently. THE respondent, therefore, lodged a complaint with the concerned official on the 12th of May, 1992. But the same went unheeded and the defect pointed out was not removed. On the night of the 18th of May, 1992 the aforementioned naked wires of the transformer sparked sharply and these fell on the sugarcane crop standing in the field of the respondent, which in the result caught fire and the whole standing sugar-cane crop in one and half acre or more had been completely destroyed. On these allegations patent deficiency in the supply of electric services was laid at the door of the respondent and compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- alongwith interest was claimed.

In the written statement filed by the Board, it was admitted that electric energy was being supplied to the appellant, but it was sought to be denied that the cable wires and transformer were naked or loose. It was speciously averred that the first information report had not been lodged, but on the application of the complainant an enquiry was made which revealed that a fuse of the transformer was not working and the same was set right.

THE parties led evidence in support of their respective cases by way of affidavits and documents. THE primal stand taken on behalf of the appellant by their learned Counsel below however, was on the basis of the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of the clear cut ratio, laid down in categoric terms in of ''Davinder Bir Singh v. S.D.O., H.S.E.B. District Kurukshetra (Supra). The District Forum distinguished the authority relied upon on the ground that the transformer was installed on the land of one Harpal Singh, even though it was admittedly adjacent to and adjoining the land of the respondent. It was consequently concluded that as the source of the fire and damage was the sparking of the cable wire of the transformer located in another person''s land, there ''vas no deficiency of service despite the fact that the respondent had a strong case for damages and compensation under the law of tort against the Board.

MR. K.D. Sehgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has forcefully assailed the aforesaid distinguishing of the case from the ratio of ''Davinder Bir Singh v. S.D.O., H.S.E.B. District Kurukshetra'' (Supra) as wholly specious. It was contended that a somewhat overly hyper-technical view has been taken only on the ground that the transformer was not on the land of the appellant, but just on the boundary of the adjoining field. It was submitted that the location of the transformer a few feet this side or the other of an agricultural field is not the least reason from holding against the appellant when otherwise the deficiency in service stands well established. There is a patent merit in the aforesaid submission. A reading of the order in Davinder Bir Singh''s case would make it manifest that the principle on which it turned was not the mere finical location of the equipment by a few feet on one side of the field boundary or the other, but on the sounder foundation of the following observation : "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 trnaformer to the tubewell as against those supplying the said transformer from the main line running on the complainant''s land itslef would be somewhat finical."

It would be plain from the above that the acid test in such cases is as to what forms part and parcel of one single integrated system for the supply ofelectric energy. Herein, there is no dispute that the tubewell of the appellant derives its supply from the very transformer which lay adjacent to the appellants field and wherefrom the sparking took place because of the defective cables & caused fire and the damage to the appellant''s sugar cane fields. It cannot, therefore, possibly be said that the transformer was not part and parcel of the single integrated system for energising the tubewell of the appellant.

EQUALLY, we would wish to reiterate what we have said earlier that even if two well matched constructions are possible, the balance must now be tilted in favour of the complainant within the consumer jurisdiction. It is well settled by now that the Act is a beneficient statute for the purpose of protecting the consumer interest. 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 in construing the act may well be possible. In such a situation, the golden rule of interpretation in the present Act would be that the issue has to be tilted in favour of the consumer, rather than be stretched against him.

IN view of the above, the stringent technical view taken by the District Forum cannot be sustained. It bears repetition that it has held repeatedly that the complainant would have a strong case against the Board under the law of torts so far as damages to his crops is concerned. If that be so, it appears to us that the deficiency in service is somewhat wider than the concept of negligence in tort. If the appellant has a good case in tort, he has a doubly better one on the score of a deficiency in service in the consumer jurisdiction. This appeal has consequently to be allowed and we are constrained to set aside the order of the District Forum and hold that the appellant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable. However, as the District Forum has not adverted to the merits, we remand the case back to it for its trial in accordance with law. The appellant is also entitled to the costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/-. Appeal allowed with costs.