ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. V RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are of the view that the appeal has to be accepted. The complaint is based upon a fire accident on account of which it is alleged that the sugarcane crops was destroyed leading to a loss of Rs.93,000/- to the complainant. The gist of the case is that the high tension wire which was running over the land of the complainant snapped and fell on the field where the sugercane was raised and it resulted in a fire which destroyed the sugercane crops. In the very complaint, it is alleged that it was due to carelessness and negligence of the opposite parties. It may be that the complainant is a consumer relating to the Service Connection No.158. But the claim is not made with reference to the Service Connection No.152 or any deficiency in service relating to the same. The high tension electrical wire running overhead snapped and fell on to the field of the complainant resulting in a fire accident and damaging the crops. Thus it was an accident caused by the sudden snapping of the high tension overhead wire. Therefore, the snapping of the wire is either an accident caused by unknown factor or caused by the negligence of the Electricity Department. In either case, the remedy of the complaint is only to resort to a Civil Court, it being an actionable claim arising out of a tortious liability. Tortious liability is nothing but a liability arising out of want of care and negligence. For such a claim, the Consumer Protection Act cannot be resorted to. The scope and ambit of the Act is quite different. It does not take in its purview actions of this nature. Only where there is deficiency in service and where there is hiring of service and where there is a relationship of consumer the provisions of the act can be resorted to. Just because the complainant is a user of electricity, he cannot become a consumer with reference to the high tension electrical wire. It is not his case that he has been supplied energy directly from the said high tension electrical wire taken overhead his field. He was a consumer with reference to a service connection either for domestic purpose or for agricultural purpose. By no stretch of imagination, the amplitude of consumer can be extended to take in the complaint as forming part of definition under Sec.2 of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, in our view, the complaint ought not to have been entertained. It is a claim pure and simple arising out of accident for which the remedy is before a Civil Court. Hence, we have no hesitation in disturbing the verdict of the lower Forum.

(2.) In the result, this appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without costs. The order passed by the lower Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed but, in the circumstances without costs.