SAMPURAN SINGH DEOL And SONS vs S.D.O., PSEB, PAYAL

AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated 11.3.96, the complainant Sampuran Singh is the appellant before us.

RELEVANT facts are very short. The complainant had 10 HP electric connection from the opposite party-Punjab State Electricity Board for his factory, wherein wooden articles like ice candy sticks and ice cream spoons are manufactured. As ill-luck would have been, on 20.7.93 on account of the fire the electric meter was burnt. He demanded the replacement of the new meter but he was not obliged for the same by the Board as it insisted upon the prior deposit of the meter charges. Ultimately, on 1.9.93 on the much insistence of the complainant without the prior deposit of the charges, the meter was installed and put the charges in the sundry charges. He filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency of service against the opposite party for depriving him of the electricity supply for his factory for 37 days i.e. from 20.7.93 to 1.9.93. The District Forum after affording the due opportunity of leading the evidence to the parties and hearing them, dismissed the complaint. We have heard the complainant-appellant who is present in person and Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-opposite party and with their kind assistance have gone through the record. The learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint observing that a consumer of electricity cannot insist that the meter be installed without the payment of charges. Mr. Mahajan appearing for the Board has invited our attention to Instruction No. 108 issued by the Board, wherein it has been mentioned that as per Clause 17 of the Abridged Conditions of Supply, the consumer is solely responsible for any loss or damage to the meter whether caused maliciously or through culpable negligence or default on the part of the consumer or any of his employees and shall be responsible for paying the cost of repairs, or of the meter itself. The complainant-appellant could not establish the plea that the meter had not been burnt on account of any fault on his part and there was any responsibility of the burnt meter of Board or its employees. The Consumer FORA have no jurisdiction to travel beyond the instructions issued by the Electricity Board. For challenging the vires of the instructions, the remedy of the Consumer is somewhere else and not under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to us, the Electricity Board has only shown concession to the complainant by installing the meter on 1.9.93 without demanding the prior deposit. The concession granted cannot be extended to the effect that the Board could not make a demand. For the delay in installing the meter, the Board cannot be held responsible because it was the default of the consumer himself in not depositing the charges which was legally due to the Board.

For reasons recorded above, the present appeal is dismissed and we put our seal upon the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated 11.3.96. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.