The existence of a H.T. line which existed since long before the colony was developed by the M.P.H.B. does not amount to an infringement of any right of the consumer to construct a room over the house.

Justice. Y.B. Suryavanshi, President— This appeal is against the orders of the District Forum directing the appellant/M.P.E.B. to dealienate the High Tension (H.T.) line running near the house of the complainant, to some other place, within a period of two months from the date of order; and meanwhile, to pay the complainant compensation from 1.10.1990 @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. till the said H.T. line is dealienated.

2. It is not in dispute that the complainant Rajendra Mishra, had purchased M.I.G. House No. 34 from Housing Board about nine years ago i.e., sometime in the year 1982-83, and is residing with his family. A H.T. line 11,000 voltage runs across above the said house.

3. The complainant alleged that he wants to construct a room, but because of the said H.T. line he is unable to do so. Furthermore, such a high voltage line is a potential danger. That, he has requested M.P.E.B. authorities to dealienate the line, but there has not been any response; and therefore, he is unable to construct the room over his house and thereby has suffered a loss of Rs. 90,000/-.

4. The M.P.E.B. in its reply stated that no record about correspondence on the subject could be traced in the office records. It is further averred that the H.T. line does not run over the house, but runs by the side of the house. That, the line existed earlier before the construction of the house. Had the house existed from before, it would not have been laid as it exists today. It was further stated, that unless the complainant deposits Rs. 34,485/- as shifting charges, no dealienation is possible. It seems an objection was also raised to the effect that the complainant is not a “consumer” which appears to have been denied in the rejoinder filed by the complainant on 10.1.1991. It was further stated that high voltage line is a danger to human life, and on such ground and in public interest, the M.P.E.B. has dealienated such lines at other places.

5. The complainant examined himself and Shri R.C. Jain, Jr. Engineer, was examined on behalf of the OP. The Learned Forum held, that the complainant is a “consumer”; that the line existed before the Housing Board constructed the house which was purchased by the complainant about nine years ago. According to the Learned Forum that even though the line existed before the construction it was incumbent on M.P.E.B. to serve a notice on the Housing Board; and therefore, there is no fault and this is not a fault attributable to the complainant. That, the comrplainant is at liberty to construct his house as per bis requirements. That, there had been instances where the MPEB has removed H.T. lines being a potential danger to the public; that the complainant is entitled to get the line dealienated, without payment of shifting charges as alleged; that the M.P.E.B., had been a stumbling block in the additional construction intended by the complainant, and inspite notice the Divisional Engineer did not take any action; the complainant has suffered “some loss which is not possible to assess.” Hence, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,000/- p.m. from 1.10.1990 till the line is being dealienated. Rs. 200/- have been awarded as costs of litigation.

6. The first question for consideration is whether the respondent/complainant is a ‘consumer’ within the scope and ambit of Section 2(1) (d) of the consumer Protection Act? The supply of electric or other energy comes within the ambit of ‘service’. We are aware of a decision rendered by Haryana State Commission which is reported in Vol. I (1991) C.P.J. Page 115 — Prof. Inderjit Kumar & Others v. Haryana State Electricity Board. It was observed in that case that none of the complainants therein was drawing Electric energy from the 11 K.V. High Tension electric Line feeding the Kalpi Sub-Division, and the sole consumer from that feeder line was the Air Force Missile Station at Ambala. However, the learned counsel Shri Verma, appearing for the M.P.E.B., conceded that the complainant is a ‘consum