U.P.State Electricity Board vs SIKANDAR

THIS appeal has been directed against order dated 11.8.1992 passed by District Forum, Hardoi.

WE have heard learned Counsel Mr. Deepak Mehrotra for the appellant. The opposite party has remained absent inspite of information. Learned Counsel for the appellant has attacked the judgment on the ground that the complainant-opposite party was not a consumer of electricity. According to learned Counsel complainant-opposite party has tied this she buffalo below the electric wire. In Section 2D of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 consumer has been defined as the purchaser of any goods etc. Thus, this clause does not apply as the purchaser has not purchased any goods from the appellant. Moreover, the essential feature of Clause (i) is that there should be relationship between the complainant and appropriate party, which is lacking in this case.

Further Clause (ii) provides that if anybody hires or avails any service for consideration etc., then the consumer is entitled for compensation. But in the present case, neither the complainant has hired nor availed any service. Moreover, the complainant has also not taken electric connection from the appellant and is not consumer.

THE electricity was not supplied to the complainant by appellant. THE complainant is not covered by the definition of consumer. Thus, the complainant cannot by stretch of imagination, be said to be a consumer. THE complaint should have been dismissed by the District Forum on this ground alone. THE Members of the District Forum have not considered this aspect of this case. The next contention of the learned Counsel for appellant is that it could only be an accident and there was no fault or negligence on behalf of appellant in running any service. There is no allegation as is clear from the judgment of the District Forum that the complainant was getting any service from the appellant. Moreover, there is nothing on record which indicates that the electric wire broke down on account of the negligence of the appellant, resulting in death of she-buffalo. There is no evidence to show that the electric wire was weak from the point where it broke down, and the attention of appellant was drawn to this effect.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant further argues that the contention raised by the appellant in written statement was not at all considered. Perusal of the judgment shows that it is a very short judgment and the allegations of appellant have not been considered at all. Moreover, no reason is given in the judgment as to how the complaint stood proved. In fact it is not a speaking judgment and is devoid of reasoning. Thus, the complainant was not entitled to claim any relief before the District Forum as he was not a consumer and Consumer Protection Act does not apply in the present case. The appeal is allowed and order dated 11.8.1992 passed by District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed.