PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 20.1.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) As per the complaint, appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) vide notice dated 2.4.2002 sent a demand of Rs.68,946/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) to be paid by 17.4.2002. No details of payment were given. The complainant had approached the opposite party for investigation of the matter but he was asked to make the payment in order to avoid the disconnection. It is then stated that the complainant was forced to make the payment. The meter was removed from his premises, which was not packed in cardboard box. The meter was not sent to M. E. Lab within 15 days and no notice regarding the checking in the M. E. Lab was given to him. The demand, according to the complainant, raised against him was against rules. He sought that the demand be quashed and the amount deposited be refunded with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till refund along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

(3.) Opposite party in its reply took the preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable since there was no deficiency in service. According to the opposite party, the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was changed and was sent to the M. E. Lab on 15.2.2000 and on checking it was found that all the M. E. seals were fake. The counter of the meter was changed and the meter was recording 50% less energy. It was the case of measured theft. The account of the complainant was overhauled as per CC No.33/99 and the demand of Rs.68,946/- was raised. It was admitted that the complainant was a consumer of opposite party and the demand was raised. According to opposite party, the demand having been raised as per rules, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence this appeal. We have heard the Counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the order of the District Forum minutely.