ORDER (Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member): These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 23.05.2006 passed by the District Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 85 of 2005. Vide its order, the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite parties to pay to Sh. Baldev Singh-complainant No. 3 a sum of Rs. 26,500/- against the damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation, within two months. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainants Sh. Malook Singh, Sh. Nirmal Singh and Sh. Baldev Singh (hereinafter referred to as complainant Nos. 1, 2, & 3 respectively) are three brothers. They had sowed wheat crop in an area of about 7 acres. The complainants have stated in the consumer complaint that the said wheat crop got burnt on 08.04.2005 at about 4:30 p.m. It is alleged that as soon as the electricity supply was resumed at 4:30 p.m., the electric wires of 11 KV H.T. lines, which were passing over the complainants’ agricultural field, touched with each other due to strong winds and produced sparkles and due to these sparkles a fire broke out and the crop got burnt. The incident was reported to Thana In-charge, Gadarpur. The police sent the fire brigade, which extinguished the fire. By that time, the entire wheat crop standing in an area of about 7 acres had got burnt and had turned to ashes. Due to this fire, the complainants suffered a loss of about Rs. 1.50 lacs. The complainants requested the Electricity Department to compensate the loss, but to no avail. This led the complainants to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the consumer complaint holding that only Sh. Baldev Singh, in whose name an electricity connection for the tubewell is sanctioned, is the consumer and the other two complainants viz. Sh. Malook Singh and Sh. Nirmal Singh are not consumers of the Electricity Department. Accordingly, the District Forum, vide its order dated 23.05.2006, directed the opposite parties to pay to Sh. Baldev Singh – complainant No. 3 a sum of Rs. 26,500/- against the damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties as well as the complainant Nos. 1 & 2– Sh. Accordingly, the District Forum, vide its order dated 23.05.2006, directed the opposite parties to pay to Sh. Baldev Singh – complainant No. 3 a sum of Rs. 26,500/- against the damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties as well as the complainant Nos. 1 & 2– Sh. Malook Singh & Sh. Nirmal Singh have filed these two appeals, which are registered as First Appeal No. 299 of 2006 and First Appeal No. 152 of 2006 respectively. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order and the facts of the case are same, these are being disposed of by this common order. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants–Electricity Department, respondents in First Appeal No. 152 of 2006, argued that the Electricity Department is not responsible for any loss for the reasons beyond its control as per Regulation-14(ii) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulation, 1984. It was also argued that no one else, except the Engineers of the Electricity Department, is competent to give cause of sparkling in the H.T. lines passing over the agricultural field of the complainants. He submitted that even the report of the Electrical Inspector is not supported with any material or witnesses for the cause of fire that broke out in the agricultural field of the complainants, burning the wheat crop standing on it. The fire broke out due to natural calamity and, therefore, the Electricity Department cannot be held responsible for this, because the circumstances were beyond its control. The learned counsel also submitted that Sh. Baldev Singh – complainant No. 3 is not a consumer of the Electricity Department in the eyes of law, as he was using the electricity connection for agriculture, which was for commercial purposes and, thus, the District Forum has erred by entertaining the consumer complaint. 5. The learned counsel for Sh. Baldev Singh–respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 299 of 2006, reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel for Sh. Malook Singh and Sh. Nirmal Singh, appellants in First Appeal No. 152 of 2006, argued that the complainants jointly hold the agricultural land and also do the farming jointly. Baldev Singh–respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 299 of 2006, reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel for Sh. Malook Singh and Sh. Nirmal Singh, appellants in First Appeal No. 152 of 2006, argued that the complainants jointly hold the agricultural land and also do the farming jointly. However, there is an electricity connection in the name of Sh. Malook Singh also and the bills against this connection are being paid by him regularly. He also submitted that the report submitted by the Electrical Inspector cannot be ignored. In the said report, the Electrical Inspector has clearly stated that the H.T lines were poorly maintained. The learned counsel submitted that the District Forum has erred in holding that the complainants are not consumers of the Electricity Department. When all the complainants do farming jointly and use the electricity connection for their tubewells, then all of them are consumers and are entitled to get compensation for the loss suffered by them. 7. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the maintainability of the consumer complaint is concerned, the District Forum has not erred by entertaining the consumer complaint, because the complainants have clearly stated in the consumer complaint that the farming in the said agricultural field is done by them for earning their livelihood. The Electricity Department has failed to adduce any evidence in this regard to prove that it is done for any commercial purpose. In the instant case, the District Authorities have assessed the value of the burnt crop at Rs. 80,000/-. This also shows that the value of the whole year’s crop would be around Rs. 2.50 lacs. This includes agricultural expenses also. So, the earning from the agricultural field is not so huge that it could be termed as commercial. 8. However, on the point of “consumer”, the view taken by the District Forum is not perfectly just, because the complainants are three brothers. If they hold the agricultural land jointly and do the farming jointly, then it is not necessary that each one of them should have a separate electricity connection for the tubewell. If the electricity connection is in the name of Sh. If they hold the agricultural land jointly and do the farming jointly, then it is not necessary that each one of them should have a separate electricity connection for the tubewell. If the electricity connection is in the name of Sh. Baldev Singh and the said connection is used to run the tubewell, then, as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the other two brothers Sh. Malook Singh & Sh. Nirmal Singh are also consumers, because they are real brothers and are beneficiary of the services rendered by the Electricity Department through Sh. Baldev Singh’s electricity connection. However, the record of First Appeal No. 152 of 2006 reveals that there is another electricity connection in the name of Sh. Malook Singh (Paper No. 20 on the record of First Appeal No. 152 of 2006). Thus, as per the definition of “consumer”, under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, all the three complainants are consumers of the Electricity Department. 9. The last question to be answered is as to whether the Electricity Department has made any deficiency in service, which caused a loss to the complainants and whether the complainants are entitled to any compensation for the said loss and the Electricity Department is liable to pay it. Our answer is in affirmative. The reason being that the 11 KV HT lines passes over the agricultural field of the complainants. All the three complainants are consumers of the Electricity Department. The Electricity Department has failed to prove that there was a separate L.T. line for the tubewells and that line was intact. Infact, connections for running the tubewells are given from the same H.T. lines by using a transformer to step down the voltage. The report submitted by the Electrical Inspector clearly states that the H.T. lines were poorly maintained. Therefore, it was not a natural calamity, but it was due to the negligence of the Electricity Department that the H.T. lines could not withstand the strong winds and got broken and touched with each other, causing sparkling and these sparkling caused fire in the wheat crop field of the complainants. The plea taken by the Electricity Department is that the Electrical Inspector is not an expert and no one else other than the Engineers of the Electricity Department is competent to give expert report, is ridiculous. The plea taken by the Electricity Department is that the Electrical Inspector is not an expert and no one else other than the Engineers of the Electricity Department is competent to give expert report, is ridiculous. The Electrical Inspector is a highly qualified technical person, who has a team of other technical personnel to assist him. His report is most significant in such disputes and, therefore, it cannot be ignored. So far as the quantum of loss is concerned, the complainants have estimated the loss at Rs. 1.50 lacs, but the District Authorities have assessed the same at Rs. 80,000/-. Out of this, the District Forum has already awarded a sum of Rs. 26,500/- to Sh. Baldev Singh, respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 299 of 2006. Thus, the appellants in First Appeal No. 152 of 2006 are entitled to a sum of Rs. 53,000/- and the appellants in First Appeal No. 299 of 2006 are liable to pay it. The impugned judgment and order is modifiable accordingly. 10. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 299 of 2006 filed by the Electricity Department is dismissed and First Appeal No. 152 of 2006 filed by the complainant Nos. 1 & 2 is allowed. The order dated 23.05.2006 passed by the District Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar is modified by holding that all the three complainants are consumers of the Electricity Department and each one of them is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 26,500/-. The appellants, Electricity Department, are directed to pay the compensation to the complainant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 (Sh. Malook Singh, Sh. Nirmal Singh & Sh. Baldev Singh) accordingly within a month from the date of this order, failing which an interest @ 7% per annum shall also be payable to each of them on Rs. 26,500/- from the date of filing the consumer complaint till actual payment. The order regarding payment of the cost passed by the District Forum is confirmed. Costs of the appeal made easy. 11. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 299 of 2006.