The main legal point established in the judgment is that a member of a joint family can be considered a beneficiary and included in the definition of consumer, entitling them to compensation for damages.

ORDER

Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Member - Suka Bhilla Thellari appellant/original complainant challenges in this appeal the judgment and order dated 30.10.2007 in complaint case No. 305/2007 passed by District Forum, Dhule.

2. Facts of the complaint are as under

Complaint No. 305/2007 was filed against Maharashtra State Electricity Disribution Company Ltd. for the compensation in respect of death of horse due to electric shock. Complainant is residing in joint family with his brother. Complainant purchased one horse for Rs 1,00,000. On 14.11.2006 while horse was grazing in the field of complainant died due to electric shock. Wire from the electric line was broken and due to touch of said wire horse was died. Post mortem was done by veterinary doctor, Panchanama was conducted by Police Patil. As per Panchanama price of horse shown as Rs 60,000. Therefore Complainant approached to Forum.

3. Respondent Maharashra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd appeared before Forum and resisted the complaint. Respondent contended that complainant is not a consumer as electric connection was not in his name. After hearing both the parties District Forum dismissed the complaint.

4. Notices of final hearing were issued to both the parties. Advocate R.B. Suryawanshi appeared for appellant. Advocate Medhekar appeared for respondent. It is submitted by Advocate Suryawanshi that electric connection was taken in the name of brother of appellant. Appellant is member of joint family therefore he is beneficiary of electricity. It is further stated by Adv.Suryawanshi, that complainant purchased the horse for Rs 1,00,000. His horse died due to electric shock. Because of negligence of respondent, wires were loose and therefore they break down and due to touch of wire the horse died. The appellant informed the police and revenue authority. The Panchanama was conducted. In the said Panchanama price of horse is shown as Rs. 60,000. Advocate Suryawanshi further submitted that post-mortem was conducted by veterinary doctor. According to his report horse was died due to electric shock. It is further submitted by Adv.Suryawanshi that legal notice was also issued to the respondent but it was neither replied nor any action taken by the respondent. Forum did not consider the facts and record Forum committed error in dismissing the complaint.

5. Advocate Medhekar submitted that complainant is not a consumer of Maharashtra Elecricity Distribution Company as connection was not in his name. It is further submitted by Adv.Medhekar that price of horse stated by complainant is Rs 1,00,000, while in the Panchanama the price of horse is mentioned Rs 60,000, therefore, it cannot be said that complainant produced any evidence about the price of horse.

6. We heard both the parties and perused the record. It is the case of complainant, that complainant is member of joint family. Electric connection taken in the name of complainant is brother as he is Karta of joint family. In our view, complainant is beneficiary and therefore includes in the definition of consumer. Post mortem of the horse was conducted by the veterinary doctor. In the said report it is clearly mentioned that horse died due to electric shock. Complainant mentioned price of horse as Rs. 1,00,000. But Panchanama conducted by police mentioned the price of horse as Rs. 60,000 Panchas observed the horse and concluded the price. In our view Panchas are expert and inspected the horse while conducting the Panchanama therefore we are of the view that price of horse by Panchas is correct and proper hence:

ORDER

1. Appeal is allowed.

2. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 60,000 as compensation within one month and failure it will carry interest @ 9 % p.a.

3. No order as to cost.

4. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.