SATYANARAYAN RATHI vs M.P. State Electricity Board

BY this complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has sought compensation against the M.P. Electricity Board, for damage by fire to his stock, due to loose wires of the transmission line.

THE brief facts as depicted by the complainant, Mr. S.N. Rathi, are that he is the proprietor of a saw mill, installed by him to earn his livelihood. He operated it with the help of two- three labourers. He also appointed two watchmen, one for the day time and the other for night. He was provided with an electric power connection by the M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). THE 11KV transmission electric power line of the Board passed through his plot. THE wires of the high-tension line were loose and whenever there was a strong breeze, they dashed against one another and caused electric sparking. Since this was dangerous and could damage the saw mill and stock of wood, the complainant brought it to the notice of the engineers of the Board and requested them to either shift the said lines or tighten the wires. He made this request in writing in 1980, 1986 and 1999, but all his efforts went unheeded. On 26.5.2005, at about 2.30 a.m. at night, the wires of the high-tension line broke and caused sparking, resulting in fire. THE stock of wood, kept in the premises of the complainant, was completely burnt. He suffered damages of Rs. 50 lakh. He informed the Junior Engineer of the Board about the incident and prayed for compensation for the damages, to which there was no response. A police report was also made of the incident. The complainant further states that he reported the matter to the Collector, Harda, on whose directions an inquiry was made by the Tahsildar, Harda. The Tahsildar confirmed the incident and damages in his report.

The complainant has alleged carelessness, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Board. On account of the fire, he has become unemployed. He has prayed for a relief of Rs. 50,20,000.

THE Board, in their reply, have raised objections regarding the tenability of the complaint. THEir contention is that the complainant has been provided the electric connection for commercial purpose for operating a saw mill, with a connected load of 11HP. THE complaint was filed on 25.11.2005, after the Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2002 came into force. THEy state that the saw mill is not for self-employment but is a commercial venture of large proportions. The second objection made by the Board regarding tenability, is that the complainant has alleged that the wood caught fire due to alleged sparking of cables of 11KV high-tension transmission line. This allegation is in the nature of a tort for which the complainant can approach the Civil Court, and cannot obtain relief under the Consumer Protection Act, as per the law laid down by the National Commission and this Commission in several similar cases.

IN their reply to the allegations, the Board states that the 11KV transmission line was present much before the installation of the saw mill. It has always been in good condition and there were no loose wires. It was meant for the whole community and shifting of the line is neither required for electrical safety, nor is it possible to do so at the Board''s cost. During discussions, the complainant was told that shifting was not necessary from electrical safety point of view, but if he still wanted it shifted, it would cost him about Rs. 3 lakh, to which he did not agree. They further state that the transmission line was not the cause of the fire. The fire was caused by some unknown reason. It was a large fire, which kept raging and could not be controlled. By the heat waves generated, the conductor wires of the 11KV line melted and broke after about 1 and 1 hours after the commencement of the fire. Stating that the allegations made in the complaint are false and denying any negligence on their part, they have prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with costs Rs. 10,000. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and appraised the evidence on record.

THE complainant has in his affidavit stated that he runs the saw mill for his livelihood by way of self-employment. He has also averred that he employed 2-3 persons to help him to run his mill and has two watchmen. Admittedly, the complainant purchases wood from the Forest Department, which is transported to his saw mill. He has to use labour for loading and unloading of the timber purchased and stacking it in his premises. Sawing of the timber has to be done by trained labour. It is very obvious that he employed a large number of people in this venture. His claim of losses to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000 itself shows that he deals in large stocks of wood. THE legal position regarding self-employment has been made clear by the Apex Court in the case of Cheema Engineering Service v. Rajan Singh, VI (1998) SLT 20=(1997) 1 SCC 131, wherein it was held-"Self employment connotes altogether a different concept, namely, he alone uses the machinery purchased for the purpose of manufacture by employing himself in working out or producing the goods for earning his livelihood. ''He'' includes the members of his family". In the instant case, the complainant himself has admitted to employing three people and two watchmen. This was not a case of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. It was a large commercial enterprise and such complainants cannot be said to be consumers. In our considered opinion, the complaint is not maintainable on this ground.

SECONDLY, this Commission has also held in earlier cases, MPEB v. Indra Bahadur Singh, Appeal No. 1855/1999 decided on 13.2.2003, that disputes relating to losses occurring due to damage caused by high-tension transmission lines are not consumer disputes. The appropriate remedy for the complainant is to claim compensation by instituting a civil suit under the law of torts. Thus, on both counts, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. We dismiss this complaint without going into the merits or demerits of the case. The complainant can, if he so chooses, file a civil suit for redressal of his grievance. In such a case he can claim benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint dismissed.