IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Once a judicial forum comes to conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction in the matter, it must refrain from making any observations on merits of case.
(2) Electricity – Being a customer/consumer with respect to a particular connection as identified by a particular Electric Meter would not make that individual “consumer” under CP Act.

ORDER

RP/4164/2011

Bharatkumar Pandya, Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’) by the Petitioner - Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi (BKG), against the order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, in First Appeal No. A/07/228. The said appeal arose out of the order dated 25.01.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara, in Complaint Case No. 281 of 2003, which was originally filed on 30.10.2003. Similarly, Revision Petition No. 2002 of 2016 has been filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDB) as a cross-appeal, is challenging the adverse observations of the State Commission on merits of the case despite allowing its appeal on the ground that BKG is not “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. While the Complainant challenges the findings of the State Commission holding that he is not a “consumer” under the Act, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. is assailing the observations and findings on merits recorded by the State Commission.

2. The petitioner-complainant is an agriculturist and owner of Gat Nos. 238 and 239 located at Village Vichumi, Tal. Phaltan, District Satara, Maharashtra. He is a lawful consumer of electricity supplied by the Opposite Party/Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDC) for agricultural purposes on his farmland. On 18.05.2003, a fire broke out in the complainant’s agricultural land allegedly due to a short-circuit caused by loose and poorly maintained overhead electricity wires passing through his agricultural field. These wires touched each other during heavy winds, causing sparks which ignited dry hay spread in the field, resulting in substantial crop damage, particularly to chikoo/sapota trees. Despite repeated complaints to the Opposite Party about the unsafe condition of the electric wires, no remedial action was taken. The incident was also inspected by the local Talathi and Panchnama was drawn. Thereafter, the complainant filed Complaint No. 281 of 2003 on 30.10.2003 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000, along with interest and costs, claiming negligence and deficiency in service by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDC). The OP-respondent filed its detailed reply in October, 2005 and denied all allegations of deficiency in service and asserted that the incident of fire was not due to any fault on its part. It contended that the short circuit had occurred outside the premises of the Complainant, and thus the Complainant could not be considered a “consumer” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OP maintained that the disruption in power supply and the resultant fire were either due to internal faults within the Complainant’s premises or due to external factors beyond the control of the electricity authority. It was further submitted that the electricity distribution system was functioning properly and that the department had taken all reasonable steps for maintenance and safety. The OP further contended that any claim for damages on account of the said incident would not fall under the consumer fora jurisdiction and should instead be adjudicated by a civil Court, if at all maintainable. Hence, OP sought dismissal of the complaint. After hearing both the parties the District Forum partly allowed the complaint on 25.01.2007, awarding a total compensation of Rs.9,73,750 for crop loss, Rs.7,500 for mental agony, and Rs.3,500 as litigation cost. The relevant portion of the order of District Forum (translation) is reproduced as under:

“In the written statement the Opponent has stated that- “The application and his brother has taken two electric connection but there is no defect in any electrical instruments. Though the applicant is a consumer, his co