AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BOTH sides are represented by their respective Counsels. The appeal is directed against order dated 31.3.1997 passed by CDF 24-Pgs. (S) dismissing the complaint on the ground that laying of overhead line does not actually come under definition of deficiency in service as provided under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It appears that before coming to the conclusion the Forum has noticed a decision reported in AIR 1997 Madras 64, wherein it has been laid down that no notice was required to be sent to the owner before laying poles or constructing any tower nor any consent is required from them. This is however, dependent upon the conferment of power by the State Government on the licensee under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. However, learned Counsel for appellant fairly concedes that the complainant does not come within the definition of the word ''Consumer''. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances we find no substance in the appeal which is hereby dismissed on contest. Appeal dismissed.