F.A.No. 163  OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.S.R.No.568 OF 2004
 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD

Between:

M.A.Raqeeb Sidduqi S/o late M.A.Mujeeb
Siddiqui, aged about 72 years, Occ: Retired
Commercial Tax Officer, H.No.8-1-40/A/18,
Samta Colony, Tombs Road, Towli Chowki
Hyderabad 500 008                                            Appellant/complainant

A N D

1.    The Chief Engineer, Electricity
(AP TRANSCO), Vidyuthsoudha
Hyderabad

2.  The Superintending Engineer,
     Electricity Department, Zone-7,
     APTRANSCO Hyderabad.

3.  The Divisional Engineer, AP TRANSCO
     Rathi Bowli, Hyderabad

4.  The Assistant Divisional Enigneer
     AP TRANSCO, Rathi Bowli, Electricity
     Office, Hyderabad.

5.  The Assistant Engineer, AP TRANSCO
     Towli Chowki, Sub Division, Near Qutub
     Shahi Tombs, Hyderabad               Respondents/opposite parties      

Counsel for the appellant                         Sri C.Suryanarayana Rao
Counsel for the respondents                   Sri O.Manohar Reddy

          QUORUM:      SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
                                                        &

                              SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

                        THURSDAY THE ELEVANTH DAY OF JUNE                           

                                         TWO THOUSAND NINE

                Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)

***

          The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

          The grievance of the appellant is that the District forum erroneously held that he had not taken steps to assess the damage caused to his house due to sparks emitted from a nearby transformer.  He has filed the complaint before the District forum stating that on 14.7.2003 at about 9.30 a.m. sparks were emitted from the transformer installed on the electric pole in front of his house at Towli Chowki.  The power supply was disturbed in the appellant’s house as also in his neighbours house.  The appellant reported the matter. The bulbs in the house of the appellant were burnt and severe blasting sound caused breakage of glass of house.  Electric switches, switch boards, ceiling fans were caught with fire and it was a life threatening situation for the appellant and his family members.  The entire electric wiring of the appellant’s house was burnt.  His ceiling fans, electric motor pump, geysers, refrigerator and TV were damaged  in the incident.   A news item was also published in Eenadu dated 15.7.2003 and Reh-Numa-E-Deccan dated 16.7.2003 and Urdu daily dated 15.7.2003.  The respondents department was careless in attending the problems.  The appellant sustained loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/-.  He made a representation dated 20.7.2003 to the respondent no.2 and copies thereof were sent to the other respondents.

          The District Forum rejected the complaint on the grounds that the transformer supplied power to the entire locality people and the power supply to the complainant through the line running from electric pole nearby his house and there was no short circuit in the house of the appellant.  It was also held that the appellant had not taken steps to assess the damage nor any survey was conducted. 

          The point for consideration is whether the appellant is a consumer?

          It is the case of the appellant that he is the resident of Towli Chowki locality and obtained power supply through SC No.S9-23817 to his house in the same locality.  On 14.7.2003 huge sparks came out from the transformer which was supplying power to his house and the house of other people in the locality due to which his property such as bulb, ceiling fans, electric motor pump, geysers, refrigerator and television set were damaged.  On 20.7.2003 he submitted a representation to the respondents requesting for installation of another transformer and take steps to prevent reoccurrence of the incident.  The paper clippings of Eenadu would show that there was explosion of single phase transformer which was installed a month prior to the date of incident and problems related to power supply were faced by the consumers from the next day of its supply and it was reported that the appellant had stated that his moveable property was damaged in the incident. 

          The appellant has been consuming the energy supplied by the respondent through whatsoever medium, be it a transformer or an electric pole upon which a live wire runs supplying energy  to the house of the appellant as also to the houses of the other people in Toli Chowki locality of Hyderabad.  The respondent would not supply the power free of cost.  Having charged the appellant and other people in the locality, the respondent renders service to the appellant and other consumers at the relevant locality.  Hence the appellant cannot be said to be not a consumer within the scope of Sec.2(10(d) and the service rendered by the respondents also cannot be said to be not covered by Sec. 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act.  Therefore we are of the opinion that the impugned order holding the appellant not a consumer is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed directing the District Forum-I Hyderabad to register the complaint and proceed with it in accordance with law.

                                                                             PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                                      MEMBER

                                                                                 Dt. 11.06.2009