HARI SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated 12.4.2005 vide which his complaint has been dismissed.

(2.) THIS appeal was received by post. When notice was sent to the appellant that he should come present on a date fixed for motion hearing or he should engage a Counsel, he wrote a letter that he was not in a position to engage a lawyer because of paucity of funds. In these circumstances, we had requested Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant and assist us in this matter.

(3.) MR . Suvir Sehgal, Advocate argued that when the meter was removed from the premises of the appellant complainant nothing was pointed out as to whether there was anything wrong/tampering with the meter. No reason was forthcoming as to why the meter was, at all, removed. He further argued that after the removal of the meter it should have been sent to the M.E. Lab within a particular specified period as per the instructions in the sales manual and thereafter in the M.E. Lab also the meter should have been checked/tested within a particular period. In this case though there is nothing on the record as to when the meter was sent to the M.E. Lab but it was tested on 3rd of June, 2003 i.e., almost about five months of the removal of the meter from the premises of the complainant. It was further argued that the first notice (Ex. R -3) that is stated to have been served on the complainant was to come present in the M.E. Lab on 10.4.2003 when the meter would be tested. The complainant or his representative could not go and thereafter another notice (Ex. R -4) was sent to the complainant to come present in the M.E. Lab on 24.4.2003. The complainant or his representative did not come present in the M.E. Lab. Another notice Ex. R -5) was sent that the meter would be tested on 6.5.2003. The last notice was not personally served as the house is stated to have been found locked but had been left there as per the report of the official of the PSEB. The fact remains that no body came present on behalf of the appellant complainant in the M.E. Lab on 6.5.2003. The argument proceeded that since the meter was actually tested on 3rd of June, 2003 and not on 6.5.2003 another notice should have been sent to the complainant to come present at the time of the testing of the meter in the M.E. Lab.