RAM Autar SANTORIA vs BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

COMPLAINANT is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 26.8.1996 passed in Case No. 99/1993 by District Forum, Darbhanga whereby and whereunder the complaint petition has been dismissed.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant was owner of a Saw Mill under the name and style of M/s. Rakesh Timber Works at Sakri, District Darbhanga. He was having electric connection bearing consumer No. DH-92. THEre was fire in the Saw Mill and every thing burnt on 7.8.1985. It is said that some person of the Electric Department visited the premises of the complainant and brought the electric line under series. THE explanation for the same was that the voltage of the electric line became deem. It is alleged that as a result of bringing the line under series there was fire from the electric line which spread and damaged the entire mill. THE complainant filed the case and claimed damages against the Electricity Board. The O.P. (Board) appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the Board had already disconnected the line two months before 3.4.1985. When there was fire in the premises, therefore, the question of bringing the line under series does not arise. It is reported that after disconnection of the line by the Board the complainant has illegally connected the electric line and that might be the cause of short circuit of fire in the Saw Mill. The report of the Assistant Electrical Engineer dated 12.4.1985 it is mentioned that line was disconnected on 3.1.1985.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material on record the District Forum held that as per report of the Fire Brigade the cause of fire was short-circuit in the electric line but for which the Electricity Board cannot be held liable nor any damages can be awarded against them. The District Forum held that for the short-circuit consumer itself was responsible besides the Saw Mill was insured against fire, therefore, the consumer was entitled to get compensation and other reliefs from the Insurance Company and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

THE learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted before us that electrical line of the consumer in the Saw Mill was never disconnected. No notice was served to the complainant before the alleged date of disconnection of electric line. On the date of fire this is admitted fact that there was electric line in the Saw Mill. As per report of the Fire Brigade the short-circuit was due to the act of the officials of the Electricity Board who have serialise the electric line of the complainant which was the cause of short-circuit. In reply the learned Lawyer of the Electricity Board submitted that there was electric dues against the complainant and due to non-payment about three months before the date of alleged fire his line was disconnected. It appears that consumer has tampered with the meter and electric line and restored the connection illegally. This may be the cause of short circuit or it may be due to any other factor for which consumer is wholly responsible and not the Electricity Board. Internal fitting in the premises is done by the consumer and short-circuit was in the internal fitting of the Saw Mill with which the Electricity Board has no concern. It was further argued that admittedly complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. He was running Saw Mill for business purpose and the electric connection was not for domestic purpose but for industrial purpose. On this ground also the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. The learned Lawyer of the respondent further submitted that Saw Mill was insured against the fire, therefore, it was open for the complainant to make claim before the Insurance Company against the damages out of order. In any case the Electricity Board is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant. The complainant has filed this case to harass the Electricity Board and as such the Board should be compensated for this act of the complainant by awarding cost against the complainant.

WE have perused the impugned order and the available documents on the record. WE also considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. WE are of the view that the impugned order is in accordance with the facts and material available on record. The complainant was running a Saw Mill for business purpose. The electric connection provided in the Saw Mill was for industrial purpose. This fact is not in dispute. Therefore, the complainant was not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. WE are in agreement with this finding of the District Forum that the Electricity Board was not responsible for the alleged short-circuit in the Saw Mill. The internal fitting in any premises including business premises is done by the owner with which the Electricity Board has no concern. The short-circuit was possible due to leakage in the internal fitting. The Electricity Board provides only electric connection. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to get any damages against the Electricity Board. This fact is not in dispute that Saw Mill was insured against fire, therefore, the complainant ought to have made claim before the Insurance Company for such damages. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed and the impugned order is hereby confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.