Heard Counsel for the petitioner.  The complaint was allowed by the District Forum, but in appeal the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission. On the facts disclosed in the complaint, we do not find that the complainant would come in the definition of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   The case of the complainant is that the wire in question was passing at a distance of 1½ feet from the house in which the complainant was staying and when the wet saree of the wife of the complainant came into contact with the wire, she died due to electrocution.  The State Commission has also on facts, rejected the case of the complainant, in view of the fact that the complainant has not produced any approved/ sanctioned plan to show as to what is the set back or the front portion he left in his site abutting the main road while constructing his house.  The plea of the complainant is that the electrical line is running hardly at a distance of 1½ feet away from the house of the complainant whereas the said distance of electric line should be maintained 4 feet. 

          In view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the order of the State Commission and the revision is, hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost.