SUKHCHAIN SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THERE is a delay of 83 days in filing this appeal. Though we do not find any justification for the condonation of delay as sufficient cause has not been shown, yet in the interest of justice, we have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on merits of the appeal.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Senior Executive Engineer had inspected the electric motor of the complainant on 11.6.2004 and at the spot he had found that connected electric motor was of 10 B.H.P. against the sanctioned load of 5 B.H.P. A demand of Rs. 16,000/ - was raised for using higher BHP motor than the sanctioned load. This demand was challenged by way of filing a complaint before the District Forum on 24.8.2004 which has been dismissed by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 4.10.2004. Hence the present appeal by the complainant. The main reliance of the complainant was and is on Regulation No. 112.4.1 of the Sale Regulations which is in the following terms: ''Report of checking must be complete and comprehensive. Where the meters are found sticky or slow, the observations should not be recorded as such but the performance of the meter/metering equipment be got checked immediately from M.E. Organisation/Mobile Metering Testing Squads for arriving at correct inference. Signatures of the representative of the consumer may invariably be obtained on the report even if he may have dissenting views. If the consumer does not sign in token of checking having been conducted at his premises in his premises or that of his representative, the fact should be specifically recorded in MOI. The memo of inspection and seizure should be jointly signed by the enforcement and the operation staff. If the checking is done by one agency, the report may be signed by atleast two officers/officials. Erasing cutting/over -writings should be avoided in the memo of inspection and seizure.''

SINCE according to the appellant, the Inspection Report was only signed by Senior Executive Engineer, the inspection itself was in violation of the aforesaid regulation and, therefore, could not be made the basis of the demand.

ON the other hand, the PSEB authorities had relied upon Regulation No. 112.4.2 of the Sales Regulations to contend that an inspection carried out independently by the Senior Executive Engineer is perfectly in order. Regulation No. 112.4.2 is in the following terms: ''Enforcement and MMTS staff shall normally carry out checking with the assistance of operation officers. Sr. XEN/ASE (Enf.) shall associate Sr. XEN/ASE (Ops.) or the AE/AEE XEN (Ops.) as per availability. However, Sr. XEN/ASE (Enforcement/MMTS) shall also exercise independent checks as per schedules laid by their controlling officers.''

The District Forum, according to us, rightly held that under Regulation No. 112.4.2, the Senior Executive Engineer could independently inspect and sign the report. We find no infirmity in the approach of the District Forum. Apart from that, nothing has been suggested before us or in the grounds of appeal that the Senior Executive Engineer who inspected the spot on 11.6.2004 had any animosity towards the complainant.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed in limine. The order of the District Forum is affirmed.

SINCE the appeal stands dismissed, it is ordered that the amount deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal may be disbursed by the Registry to the respondent by sending crossed cheque/demand draft after expiry of 45 days. Appeal dismissed.