JUDGMENT

Milind S. Sonawane, Presiding Member.—This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the order and judgment passed by ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Latur (the ‘District Commission’ for short ) in C.C.No. 320/2018, whereby, the District Commission directed the appellants to pay jointly and severally sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of the filing of the complaint i.e. 26.12.2018 till the realization along with sum of Rs.5,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.2,000/- as a cost of the proceedings.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the respondent is the farmer having agricultural land bearing Gut No.125 in ‘Kasarkheda’ admeasuring 3 acres. From 2017 he cultivated sugarcane in that field and for that purpose erected the setup of electric motor, sprinkler set, wiring, drip irrigation system. He had obtained electricity connection standing in the name of his father. On 04.01.2017 at about 2.50 p.m. there was a sparking in the ‘main line’ going through his field. Because of the short circuit and sparking the fire broke out and his entire sugarcane crop burnt in the incident. He informed the incident to the appellants, police, Revenue Authorities and Electrical Inspector. The Electrical Inspector in his report dated 13.12.2017 concluded that, because of the improper care and caution and lack of timely maintenance the incident has taken place. The Talathi also in its panchanama concluded that, because of the fire incident there has been loss caused to the respondent to the extent of Rs.1,60,000/-. As such, the respondent seek the compensation from the appellants for the burning of the sugarcane crop and that of electric wires, sprinkler setups, drip irrigation pipers etc. totalling to Rs.5 Lakh along with compensation for mental and physical harassment. The appellants denied the same. As such he filed complaint before the District Commission in which the impugned judgment referred to above has been passed. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the appellants are before us in this appeal.

3. Adv. Mehta for the appellants filed a pursis that, the appeal memo may kindly be treated as his written argument. We heard Adv. P.S. Mehta for the appellants and Adv. G.N. Kulkarni for the respondent.

4. Adv. P.S. Mehta for the appellants submitted that, since the electric connection given, is standing in the name of the father of the respondent, the respondent is not the ‘consumer’ of the appellants. Further the electric connection has been obtained by the respondent to earn the profit and for ‘commercial purpose’, he cannot be termed as consumer within the meaning of the provisions of S.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( the C.P.Act for short) . While countering the above submissions it is submitted by Adv. G.N.Kulkarni for the respondent that, though the electric connection is standing in the name of the father of the respondent, the same is being used by the respondent for irrigating the land, which he has received as an ancestral property of his father. Secondly that, the respondent is the farmer and cultivating the agricultural land for earning his livelihood. On these both counts the respondent is the ‘consumer’ of the appellants.

5. We agree with the above submissions of Adv. G.N.Kulkarni for the respondent for the reason that, S.2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act clearly provides that, if a service hired or availed by one person and is being used by another, on the approval of the first person, who hired or availed the service, as the beneficiary, such ‘beneficiary’ would also come in the definition of the ‘consumer’. Secondly, the explanation appended to S.2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act clarifies that, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use of any service utilised by the person for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Since the respondent is the farmer by profession and cultivates his land himself and ea