A loss due to fire emanating from an overhead line not supplying electricity to the consumer's premises is not a consumer dispute within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President — This appeal arises out of the final order passed in C.D. Case No. 118 of 1992 by the District Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar. The opposite parties in the said case are the appellants in this appeal. The respondent as complainant filed the aforesaid case claiming compensation of Rs. 38,000/- as per the break-up given in para 21 of the complaint petition. His case is that he had been running a printing press named as Sri Lokanath Press at Balugaon in a rented house belonging to one Laxmidhar Biswal. The allegations contained in the application are that the electrical Substation of Balugaon is near the rooms where the Press is operated and the main transformer is placed just 15’ away from the said Press. He has alleged that the main connection of the Substation to the transformer passes over the roof of the Press which is a thatched one. He claims to have raised protests for the sparks emanating from the transformer apprehending that it may be the cause of the house being gutted with fire. But the authorities did not pay any heed. The assertion of the complainant is that on 10.8.90 at about 2 a.m. at night-fall the roof of the Press was burnt due to fire emanating from the electrical Sub-station situated near the rooms which was extinguished by the fire brigade. The loss of property due to fire has been certified to be Rs. 18,000/- by the Fire Station Officer. Similarly, the certificate from the Tahasildar, Banpur in Misc. Certificate Case No. 60 of 1991 shows the same amount. According to the complainant the present appellants are liable to pay the compensation for the loss caused to him due to fire. That apart, his further case is that he is the consumer of electricity for running the Press though the meter stands in the room of the owner of the house. The electric service was discontinued from 2.4.91 to 16.10.91 for which the Press could not function. He deposited a sum of Rs. 2,018/- on 15.10.91 whereafter service connection was given to the Press on 17.10.1991. He has claimed Rs. 13,000/- for the loss caused by non-functioning of the press due to want of electricity for a period of six months and 15 days. That apart he has prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as pecuniary loss. The present appellants filed a show cause denying their liability before the District Forum. Their stand was that fire was not due to any spark either from the transformer or from the Sub-station. They further indicated that it might be due to lightening by which some of the component parts of their Sub-station were damaged. It was also anticipated that the fire might have been caused due to defect in the internal wiring system in the house.

2. The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering all the materials placed before it, came to a conclusion that the possibility of lightning being the cause of the fire or the defective internal wiring being the cause thereof is remote which is not at all acceptable specially when the Electricity Board did not produce any document to show the extent of damages caused in their Sub-station due to lightning. The District Forum ultimately concluded that the house was gutted by accidental fire caused by sparking due to mis-conductance of energy supplied by the line connecting the Sub-station and the transformer which was due to gross negligence of the opposite parties, that is, the present appellants. So far as the loss said to have been caused to the complainant on account of discontinuance of the supply of electricity it was contended by the present appellants that the matter stands in the name of one Laxmidhar Biswal and therefore the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Act was not accepted by the District Forum. The District Forum held that the complainant was beneficiary and therefore a consumer within the meaning of the Act. It further held that the present appellants cannot be said to be guilty of defic