CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs ANIL KUMAR KASHYAP (MINOR)

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 17 May 2000 · Citation: 2000 2 CPC 375 : 2000 2 CPJ 477 : 2000 3 CPR 447

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.C.Bhargava , D.D.Bahuguna J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 403 words
1.

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.5.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kushinagar in Complaint Case No. 232 of 1999.

2.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant''s son aged 9 years went to his field on 4.10.1999 at 11.00 a.m. for work. At that place, one electric pole was found in a bent condition. THE electricity was flowing in the wire and complainant got severe burns. A report about the bending of the pole was lodged with the Electricity Department some time back but this defect was not removed. One of the hands of the complainant was totally lost and one of the leg was severely injured. THE complainant has become handicapped for whole life. On account of this fact, the complainant claimed damages from the opposite party. The opposite party denied their responsibility and has alleged that the complainant is not a consumer. The learned District Forum, after considering the facts of the case, decreed the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum.

3.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant or his father was not receiving any electricity from the appellant. Therefore, the complainant or his father were not consumers of the Electricity Board. Unless a person is a consumer, it cannot bring a claim for damages against any party. Jurisdiction of the District Forum only extended to those cases which are permissible under the scope and purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant should have approached the Civil Court. We have been informed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that ex-gratia payment of Rs. 20,000/- has already been made to the complainant on account of the injury which was caused to him.

4.

THUS, we find that the complainant should not have brought the case before the District Forum and the same is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.