Case Remanded as Complainant's 'Consumer' Status Not Proven in Electrocution Injury Claim: UP State Consumer Commission - 2025-08-20

Reliable Legal Information.

UP Consumer Commission Sets Aside ₹5.21 Lakh Compensation in Child Electrocution Case, Remands Matter for Re-evaluation

Lucknow, U.P. - The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has set aside a compensation award of ₹5.21 lakh granted to a minor who suffered a severe electrical injury, leading to the amputation of his arm. The Commission, presided over by Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava (President) and Mrs. Sudha Upadhyay (Member), remanded the case back to the District Consumer Commission, Bareilly, citing fundamental unanswered questions about the complainant's status as a 'consumer' and the flawed methodology used to calculate the compensation.

Background of the Case

The complaint was filed by Arpit, a minor represented by his mother, Smt. Guddi Devi. It was alleged that on June 18, 2018, a dilapidated 11 KV high-tension wire belonging to Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (MVVNL) snapped and fell on the boy while he was playing outside his home. The resulting electrocution caused grievous injuries that necessitated the amputation of his arm, leaving him with a 70% permanent disability. The complainant stated that repeated requests to the electricity department to repair the hazardous wire had been ignored.

The District Consumer Commission-I, Bareilly, had ruled in favor of the complainant on January 27, 2021, holding the electricity department negligent. It awarded a total compensation of ₹5,21,000, along with litigation costs, directing a portion to be placed in a fixed deposit for the child's future.

Arguments on Appeal

Aggrieved by the District Commission's order, MVVNL filed an appeal before the State Commission, raising several critical arguments:

• No Consumer-Service Provider Relationship: MVVNL's primary contention was that the complainant was not a 'consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. They argued that there was no registered electricity connection in the name of the complainant or his family, and thus, no service was being availed for a consideration.
• Contradictory Facts: The electricity company presented a different version of the incident. They claimed the child, along with others, had climbed onto a neighbor's roof during a wedding celebration and came into the 'charging area' of the high-tension wire. They asserted the wire never broke and fell.
• Reliance on Inspector's Report: MVVNL cited a report from the Electricity Inspector which supported their claim, stating the boy's hand touched the wire while he was on the roof with a crowd of people. The report found no evidence of a broken wire.

State Commission's Observations and Reasoning

The State Commission, after a thorough review of the case file and arguments, found significant legal and factual gaps in the District Commission's judgment.

The Commission noted, "It is not clear from the entire complaint and the evidence presented by the complainant whether there was a valid electricity connection at the complainant's residence... If there was no legally existing connection in favor of the complainant... then how is the relationship of consumer and service provider established between the complainant and the appellant?"

The judgment highlighted two major flaws in the lower court's order:

• Failure to Establish 'Consumer' Status: The Commission observed that the District Forum had failed to determine the foundational issue of whether a consumer-service provider relationship existed. Without proof of a valid electricity connection for which service was being rendered, the complaint could not be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act.
• Improper Compensation Calculation: The State Commission strongly criticized the District Commission for applying principles from the Motor Vehicles Act to calculate compensation. It pointed out that such methodologies are typically used in cases of death, not injury, and the lower court provided no justification for applying them in this instance.

Final Decision and Its Implications

Concluding that the District Commission's order was unsustainable due to these fundamental errors, the State Commission allowed the appeal.

The final order stated:

"The appeal is accepted. The judgment and order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the District Consumer Commission-I, Bareilly... is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission..."

The case has been sent back to the District Commission in Bareilly with specific instructions to re-register the complaint and decide it afresh on its merits. The lower court must now consider the observations made by the State Commission, particularly on establishing the complainant's 'consumer' status and correctly assessing compensation, after giving both parties a fair opportunity to be heard. The parties have been directed to appear before the District Commission on August 29, 2025.