1. THIS is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant against the order of District Forum, Nagpur dated 14.7.93 passed in Complaint No. 200/92. The complainant approached the District Forum, Nagpur alleging the deficiency in the service of the opposite party. The complainant alleged that on 20.11.1987 he purchased from Pan Bareja Society a plot of land and that he is the owner of it. He also alleged that since 1990 he has been paying the Panchayat tax over the said property. It is the case of complainant that he wanted electricity connection to his new premises on the aforesaid plot and for that purpose deposited Rs. 150/- with M.S.E.B. and also paid another Rs. 150/- on 26.7.90 on the basis of demand note dated 12.7.90 prepared by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The complainant also alleged that he was granted "No Objection Certificate" by the Panchayat for the supply of electricity. The complainant alleged that despite his payment towards supply of electricity connection and despite there being ''No Objection Certificate'' and other requirements, he has been denied the electricity by the opposite party. The complainant''s claim was opposed by the opposite Party by raising technical preliminary objections and the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no cause of action for the present complaint and that the Writ Petition filed by the complainant was dismissed by the High Court. The District Forum also held that the complainant had no valid permission for conversion of his land from agriculture to non-agriculture and also further held that the complainant can approach the opposite party afresh for his grievance.
2. WE have heard Shri Dhabe, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Panchal, Advocate for the M.S.E.B. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and after going through the impugned order we find that the District Forum is wrong in holding that the complaint is not maintainable. There are no convincing reasons in the impugned order as to how the complainant is not a consumer! WE find from the record that the opposite party accepted from the complainant a consideration of Rs. 150/-initially and, thereafter, issued a demand note to the complainant dated 12.7.90. On the basis of the said demand note the complainant again paid Rs. 150/- towards consideration to the opposite party on 26.7.90. These are the admitted facts. When a demand note is issued by the M.S.E.B. to a prospective consumer who wants to hire the services of the M.S.E.B. for supply of electricity, it was clear that the M.S.E.B. had decided to grant the electric connection to that person. Otherwise, there was no necessity to send a demand note for demanding Rs. 150/- from the complainant. If after examination of the particular case, the M.S.E.B. did not want to provide the electric connection then the question of issuing a demand note would not have arisen. WE further find that the demand note dated 12.7.90 was issued by the M.S.E.B. after working out the feasibility and requirements of the supply of electricity to the complainant. The intention of the M.S.E.B. to supply electric connection to the complainant is thus apparent. The M.S.E.B. further accepted Rs. 150/- from complainant on 26.7.90 towards expenses of installation of line. These undisputed facts clearly establish that the complainant had hired the services of opposite party for the supply of electric connection for a consideration. The total consideration of Rs. 300/- is still lying with the M.S.E.B. Suffice it to say that these undisputed facts clearly constitutes a complete contract of supply of electricity by the M.S.E.B. to the complainant as a consumer. What was left was to supply the power to the complainant. The "consumer" of the "services" has been defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 u/Sec. 2(d)(ii) as under : -
"Any person who (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person."
The aforesaid definition clearly provides that if a person hires any services for a consideration, which he has paid for hiring the services is a consumer. It is also pertinent to refer to Section 2(o) under the "service" is defined. The definition of services includes take service of any description which is made available to potential users. The combined meaning of the aforesaid two provisions suggests that a potential user of a service of any description which is made available to him for consideration is a ''consumer''. The process of rendering the service of electric connection commences from the date when initial deposit amount for installation is accepted from the potential consumer. The service includes charging the line by the electric current. Thus, the procedure and process for supply of electricity starts from the date of initial payment. Any lapses on the part of M.S.E.B. which prevents the use of electricity by a consumer would amount to negligence in the service. In the process if a line is not charged for supply of electricity should be construed as a deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the instant case, we find that the M.S.E.B. having accepted the consideration and started the process of providing the electricity, subsequently changed its mind on the ground of technical objections, this would be unjustified and it would amount to deficiency in the service of the opposite party.The District Forum rejected the complainant''s claim not on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer but on technical grounds. One ground is that the order of conversion of land passed by the Revenue Department from Agriculture to non-agriculture has been set aside by Appellate Court. In our view it has no relevance while rejecting the complainant''s claim. It is a common knowledge that the M.S.E.B. has been supplying /electricity connections even to the street vendors who are obviously the encroachers on Government lands and who do not possess a valid title to the land where their shop premises are situated. In our view, disputed title to a land of a consumer cannot be a ground for not giving him the electric connection. Another ground of the strict Forum is that since a Writ Petition filed by the complainant was dismissed by the Hon. High Court, it is an infirmity in complainant''s case to get the electric connection. It is stated in its order by the District Forum that the said Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. It is, however, found from the said order that the Writ Petition filed by the complainant was not dismissed on merit. Thus, we find that the District Forum rejected the complainant''s claim on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. We, therefore, find that the District Forum failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act on its correct interpretation. Hence, we pass the following order : -
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The opposite party M.S.E.B. is directed to remove the deficiency in its service and supply the electric line to the complainant within two months from the receipt of this order failing which the Maharashtra State Electricity Board shall pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the loss caused to him. The appellant also be paid Rs. 500/- as cost. Appeal allowed.
