Mr. Justice R.K. Patra, President—The order of the Balasore District Forum directing the appellants to pay to the respondent a sum of rupees two lacs as compensation is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. The respondent filed the complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 3.5 lacs against the appellants. His case is that he had a dwelling house by the side of Women’s College Road of Bhadrak town. It was a thatched house where he along with his family members was staying. An overhead electric line was passing over the thatched roof of the dwelling house. On 18.4.1994 at ahout 3.30 p.m. a sparking from the overhead electric line fell on the dwelling house setting ablaze the entire house. Because of the negligence on the part of the appellant the sparking came out from the overhead electric line resulting in the fire accident. He filed the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 3.5 lacs.

3. The appellants filed a joint written version denying the allegations. According to them one high tension-cum-low tension line along approx east-west direction in front of the damaged house of the respondnet and another single phase 3 wire line along approx north-south direction by its side were in existence. The so called dwelling house of the respondent was away from the main line and there could have been no sparking and even if there was sparking, it could not have fallen on the dwelling house because it was located at a long distance.

4. The District Forum held that because of the sparking which emanated from the overhead electric line, fire broke out. As a result, the dwelling house of the respondent was gutted and accordingly it granted compensation.

5. Mr. Nayak learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that assuming that dwelling house of the respondent was gutted with fire on account of sparking and damage was caused, the Consumer Forum is not Competent Authority to grant compensation. According to him, neither there is any defect in goods not there is any deficiency in service. He further submitted that, the overhead line was away from the dwelling house of the respondent and the sparking if any would not have been fallen on the dwelling house.

6. So far as the first ground of attack is concerned, it may be stated that this Commission in Executive Engineer, Khurda Electrical Division, Khurda v. Nabakishore Tarai, III (1996) CPJ 592=83 (1997) CON.LT (OSC) 29 has held that outbreak of fire due to misconductance of electrical energy through the overhead lines and for that reason if the complainant sustains loss, the same cannot come within the purview of the Forum constituted under the C.P. Act. The loss due to fire emanating from the line which passes over the roof of the house connecting the Sub-station to the transformer is not the line which supplies electricity to the premises occupied by a consumer. According to the law of torts, the complainant may be entitled to compensation from the Electricity Department if he proves that due to their inaction or negligence he has suffered loss, but such a claim cannot be entertained by a Forum constituted under the C.P. Act inasmuch as the loss sustained due to the aforesaid cause will not be the loss suffered by a consumer. The complainant may be a consumer of electricity so far as the supply of electrical energy to his premises is concerned, but he cannot be considered as a consumer for all other purposes even with relation to the Electricity Department if the loss was occasioned independent of the supply of electricity to his premises.

7. The facts of that case are similar to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by this Commisison with which we respectfully concur the entertainment of the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent is without jurisdiction.

8. On facts also the dwelling house of the respondent was located away from the main high tension line. It appears from the objection filed on behalf of the appellants that there was on