PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PIARA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforementioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana whereby complaint bearing No. 758/2001 filed by Piara Lal (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) was allowed against Punjab State Electricity Board etc. (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) whereby disputed demand of Rs. 58,020 raised vide memo No. 654 dated 20.4.2001 was quashed and the amount deposited against that demand was ordered to be refunded to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till refund.

(2.) IN fact appeal No. 91/2002/PB/RBT/617/2008 has been filed by Punjab State Electricity Board etc. for setting aside the impugned order whereas appeal No.175/2002/ PB/RBT71829/2008 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. Since, in both these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, so, we are deciding these appeals by this common judgment.

(3.) IN nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of these two appeals may be recapitulated thus: The complainant was having an electricity connection bearing account No. WF04/0018F installed in his residential premises. He had been making payment of the electricity bills received by him regularly and nothing was due against him. The meter of the complainant was being checked from time to time and it was specially checked on 29.7.2000 by the officials of OPs and issued a report that the meter was OK from all respects. However, subsequently the meter changed with new one without disclosing any reason. The removed meter was neither packed by the officials of OPs in a cardboard box, nor obtained his signatures. Thereafter, he received memo No. 654 dated 20.4.2001 whereby a demand of Rs. 58,020 was raised by alleging that the ME seals were tampered and the meter was running 81.897% slow. It was alleged that the meter was the property of the OPs and it was their duty to keep the meter working. It was alleged that the testing of the meter was to be done in the presence of consumer or his representative but no notice was issued about the date, time and place of testing of the meter. The complainant requested OPs to withdraw the illegal demand but they refused to accede to the request of complainant and disconnected the connection illegally. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.