The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's failure to maintain the wires properly, resulting in a fire and the death of cattle, constituted deficient services.

Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the appeal was heard finally at this stage.

2. The case of the complainant respondent before the District Forum was that he was a consumer of the services of the appellant on an electric connection for agricultural purposes with reference to Account No. 203 and Service Connection No. 2467, that the respondent had constructed his huts in the field and was living therein alongwith other members of his family as also milk bearing cattle and other cattle, that the LT line from the transformer to the well of the respondent passed over the huts but the wires of such line had been left loose by the appellant, that on 13.4.1999 at about 10 a.m. the loose wires going over the huts of the respondent came in contact with each other and created a fire which fell upon the huts of the respondent causing burning of the huts and much damages to the belongings of the respondent and his brother kept in the huts. Apart from other loss, four of the buffaloes, were directly hit by fire and one of such buffalo died on the spot and the one other subsequently. The respondent thus claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- from the appellant for rendering deficient services to him and his brother. The case put forth by the appellant in defence was that it was after connecting the well of the respondent and his brother with the transformer, that they had constructed their huts under the wires. It was denied that the appellant had not maintained the wires supplying electric energy to the well of the respondent and that they had come in contact with each other due to any negligence on the part of the appellant.

The Forum after having taken into account the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the fire was caused as a result of coming two hanging wires over the huts in contact with each other and resultantly causing the death of two she-buffaloes. The District Forum thus held that the appellant had rendered deficient services to the respondent complainant and accordingly awarded a compensation of Rs. 17,544/- to the respondent payable with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 13.4.1999 and compensation at Rs. 500/- for mental agony and costs at Rs. 300/- was also awarded. Aggrieved against such order of the Forum dated 3.4.2001 made in Complaint Case No. 333/1999 the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. It was no doubt urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the decision of the National Commission in the case of Haryana Electricity Board v. Ganga Devi, III (1996) CPJ 182 (NC), as also in the case of Haryana Electricity Board v. Sher Singh, (R.P. No. 672/1993 decided on 17.8.1994), the respondent cannot be declared a consumer of the services of the appellant and, therefore, the dispute having arisen between the parties in the present case cannot be characterised as a “consumer dispute” within the meaning of the term defined under the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act). After having considered this argument we are of the opinion that since in the present case the respondent complainant was consumer of the services of the appellant Electricity Board in connection with the electric connection installed at his fields for irrigating the fields, the ratio decidend of the cases relied upon by the appellant, does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. Herein respondent is found to be a consumer for the above reasons and the dispute, which has also been adjudicated upon by the Settlement Committee of the appellant itself, a “consumer dispute”.

4. In so far as the question of rendering deficient services by the appellant to the respondent is concerned we find that it is not in dispute that the wires from the transformer upto the well of the respondent were passing over the huts wherein belongings of the respondent, besides the cattle, were used to be kept by him. It is also proved by th