DALJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The resolution of this appeal revolves around interpretation of Sec.26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 .

(2.) The appellant before us is the complainant before the District Forum, Hoshiarpur, whose complaint filed under Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been dismissed vide order dated 24.6.1996 under challenge passed by the District Forum, Hoshiarpur. Facts in brief are that the complainant Daljit Singh is the sole proprietor of M/s. Deeson Silk Mills, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur. His grouse is that his electric connection No.54-B 32/0046 and the electric meter installed at his industrial premises was checked by SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Hoshiarpur on 4.10.1996 and the same was found defective and the meter was changed by him. Once again Flying Squad of the Board made the checking of the electricity meter on 15.10.1991 and reported that the meter was dead on two faces and CTC have been broken out. Thereafter, bill dated 21.10.1991 for Rs.46,111/- was issued to him and to save his electric connection, he deposited the bill. He filed the complaint before the District Forum that the bill under challenge for Rs.46,111/- has been arbitrarily issued to him. ' The Board has contested the complaint and justified the issuance of the bill inter alia stating that the meter checked by the Flying Squad on 15.10.1991 was found dead on two faces due to improper joints in the leads of the meter CTC and the same was set right at the spot and as such the account of the complainant was rightly overhauled from May, 1991 to September, 1991. On the basis of the report of the SDC, he was found liable to pay additional amount of Rs.46,111 /- in dispute. On the request of the complainant, the matter was referred to the Dispute Settlement Committee and the allegations of the complainant were examined by the Committee and were found frivolous.

(3.) After hearing the complainant as well as the Board and affording due opportunity of leading evidence to the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.