SHANTABAI SAMBHAJI INGLE, & ORS. vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NOW DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

The complainants are farmers owning agricultural land in Sarwadi, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur of Maharashtra. They had dug a well in their field and obtained an electricity connection for running the electric motor required at the well. A high tension 11 KV line was passing through the field of the complainants for supplying electricity from one village to another village. The electricity to the complainant however was not being provided through the aforesaid 11 KV line.

On 13.4.2010, there was an alleged short-circuit in the 11 KV line, resulting in the sugarcane crop being burnt. The complainant claims to have suffered loss of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of destruction of the crop. He therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking compensation from the respondent.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent on several grounds. The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 01.8.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal holding that the petitioners / complainants were not consumers of the respondent qua the 11 KV line coming from the main transformer and supplying electricity to the villagers at home. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioners / complainants are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

It is not in dispute that no electricity to the complainants / petitioners was being supplied through the 11 KV line where short circuit allegedly happened on 13.4.2010. Though, the complainants were otherwise consumers of the respondent, they having obtained electricity supply for running electric motor required in their well, they were not consumers of the respondent qua the 11 KV supply line passing through their fields. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a deficiency in the services rendered by the respondent to the complainant as a consumer. The alleged deficiency happened in the 11 KV line but the complainants were not consumers of the respondent qua the said line. Though they were consumers in respect of the electricity provided to the electric motor installed on their well, no deficiency in the said supply is even alleged. The remedy of the petitioner therefore is to approach a Court / Forum other than a Consumer Forum. Therefore, the view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. However, the dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the complainant approaching a court or Forum other than a Consumer Forum, for the redressal of his grievance.