PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SUBHASH SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short "PSEB") against the order of the District Forum dated 10.10.2002 by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed in the following terms : "As such, the opposite party is directed to modify the demand of the complainant by overhauling the account for the period from 12/1999 to 8/2000 only on the basis of average bi-monthly consumption recorded in 6/99, 8/99 and 10/99. The opposite party did not change the meter immediately and kept the meter dead for a long time. As such, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation and costs. After overhauling the account for the said period if the complainant is found to have made excess payment, the excess amount paid shall be refunded to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till refund. Compliance of the order be done within one month of the receipt of this order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties."

(2.) Brief facts are that the complainant had challenged two bills dated 31.12.2000 for Rs. 12,609 and dated 3.1.2002 for Rs. 56,834 issued to him by the PSEB. The District Forum observed that in fact the challenge is to the demand of Rs. 56,834 as the demand of Rs. 12,609 dated 31.12.2000 is on account of actual consumption. When the demand was raised the complainant approached the PSEB authorities but he was not given any relief excepting to the extent that he could make the payment in five instalments. This led the complainant to file the complaint before the District Forum, which has been allowed as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) The case of the PSEB was that the meter of the complainant was changed on 21.8.2000 pursuant to the meter change order (MCO) dated 14.6.2000. The audit party vide half margin dated 19.11.2001 directed the overhauling of the account of the complainant for the period the meter remained defective on the basis of average consumption recorded in August 1999 and October 1999. Accordingly, the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period 12/1999 to 10/2000 and demand of Rs. 56,834 was raised which had been added as sundry charges in the bill of actual consumption. The case of the PSEB further was that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant had remained dead from 12.9.1999 to 10/2000 and, therefore, the account was overhauled on the basis of consumption recorded in 8/99 and 10/99.