Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President; Mrs. Basanti Devi, Member;
Mr. Tikka Singh, Member
PROF. INDERJIT KUMAR & OTHERS––Appellants
versus
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD––Respondent
Complaint Case No. 1 of 1989—Decided on 26.3.1990
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Prof. Inderjit Kumar & Others.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Advocate.
A person who has not purchased any goods or hired any services from a supplier is not a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and cannot file a complaint with a consumer forum.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - LOCUS STANDI - ELECTRICITY - HIGH TENSION WIRES - HAZARD TO RESIDENTS - COMPLAINT BY RESIDENTS - MAINTAINABILITY - DEFINITION OF "CONSUMER" - RULE 82 OF THE INDIAN ELECTRICITY RULES, 1956 - UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTIONS - JURISPRUDENTIAL GROUND OF "NO MAN CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG" - DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT.
Fact of the Case:
Residents of densely populated localities near a 11 K.V. high tension electric line filed a complaint with the State Commission, alleging that the high tension wires posed a hazard to their lives and property. The Haryana State Electrical Board (Board) challenged the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that the complainants were not "consumers" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act) and that they had constructed their houses in violation of Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (Rules).
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the complainants were not "consumers" under the Act because they did not purchase any goods or hire any services from the Board. The Commission also found that the complainants had constructed their houses in violation of Rule 82 of the Rules and that they could not take advantage of their own wrong by seeking to have the high tension wires dismantled.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainants were "consumers" within the meaning of the Act? 2. Whether the complainants had constructed their houses in violation of Rule 82 of the Rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "consumer" under the Act requires a person to have either purchased goods for consideration or hired services for consideration. The complainants did not purchase any goods or hire any services from the Board, so they were not "consumers" under the Act. 2. Rule 82 of the Rules prohibits the construction of buildings or structures below or adjacent to an overhead line without complying with certain conditions. The complainants constructed their houses in violation of Rule 82, so they could not take advantage of their own wrong by seeking to have the high tension wires dismantled.
Final Decision: The State Commission dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.
S.S. Sandhawalia, President—The threshold question which falls for determination in this maiden case before the State Commission is - whether the complainants herein are “consumers” within the meaning of the definition thereof in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Necessarily it has to be noticed at the very outset that the respondent Haryana State Electrical Board (hereinafter called ‘the Board’) has vigorously challenged the very locus standi of the complainants and the maintainability of the complaint. This is, therefore, the primal issue. Since we are inclined to the view that this complaint must founded on the bed- rock of the twin preliminary objection, the facts relevant thereto only call for notice with relative brevity.
3. The 14 complainants in this joint petition are all residents of Rani Bagh, Rajindra Park, Durga Nagar and Ram Nagar Colonies, which have recently mushroomed on the outskirts of the growing urban complex of the Ambala City and its Cantonment. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the existing alignment of the 11 K.V. high tension electric line feeding the Kalpi Sub-Division, which passes over the aforesaid densely populated localities. It is alleged picturesquely that in certain cases the high tension wires are at a hand-shaking distance from the roof tops, and being not properly maintained, can lead to accidents of major magnitude. Already there has been a loss of couple of lives in the earlier years and recently on 22nd June, 1989 an 11 year old boy Munish son of Shri Avinash Kumar Bansal was near-fatally injured, while trying to remove a kite caught in the high tension wires passing over the roof-top of his house. This resulted in the amputation of his arm, right from the shoulder itself. It is the case of the complainants that the inhabitants of the houses in all the afore mentioned localities, thus, live under a constant fear of death and injury from the high tension wires and it is their stand that the houses therein have been constructed with the approval of the Municipal Committee of Ambala Sadar.
4. It is then the case that the Kalpi Sub-Division is at present being fed from Dhulkot Sub-Station, at a distance of 30 Kilometres, with the result that the high-tension wires pass over a thickly populated area of about 3 kilometres. With the recent commissioning of the 66 Kilo Watt Sub-Station at Sana, just two Kilometres from Kalpi, the latter Sub-Division can be supplied power from the said Sub-Station and the existing line should be dismantled. It is suggested that by incurring a modest expenditure and some minor inconvenience the respondent-Board can accord full relief not only to the complainants but also all other inhabitants of the said residential colonies, over which the hazard of high tension wires stretches.
5. In the reply filed on behalf of the Board it is highlighted that it was way back in the year 1966 that the Board had erected the 11 K.V. Kalpi Feeder for the supply of high power to the Air Force Missile Station situated thereat. This feeder was erected and commissioned at the express request of the Air Force Authorities at a huge cost, which was then borne by them and in the present day terms the cost thereof has gone up by more than five times. At that time there was no residential colony, whatsoever, and the land was lying vacant all around and it was the only possible route for the supply of high power to the Missile Station. and it is still the stand that even now there is no other possible route to shift the line for the supply of essential electric power to the defence establishment aforesaid. In particular, it is pointed out that the feeder and the lines had been constructed and commissioned in accordance with Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), which prescribes the minimum clearance for the electric wires of the high voltage or extra high voltage lines from the buil
