The State Commission is bound by its own previous decisions on pure questions of law.

S.S. Sandhawalia, President — Should the State Commission established under Section 9(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, be bound by its own previous decisions on pure questions of law? This is the significant larger question arising at the threshold in this appeal.

2. The facts deserve notice in some detail Dr. J.S. Dhatarwal, the proprietor of the respondent Hotel Palki, Hissar had preferred the complaint before the District Forum. The gravamen of the charge therein was that the appellant had issued a bill of electricity consumption for the amount of Rs. 26,415.31 ps. which included a demand of Rs. 19,549.88 ps. allegedly for the theft of electricity. According to the complainant, on making enquiry about this unwarranted demand he was told by the electricity department that the seal of the old meter was found broken and consequently on the presumption of a theft of energy from January to June 1990, the amount had been calculated and imposed as a penalty. It was the case that this was wholly improper, unjustified and uncalled for because according to him the seals of the old metter were never tampered with and indeed the meter readers of the Department had been visiting and recording the reading after every two months approximately and bills submitted on that basis had been regularly paid and cleared. The relief claimed was that the unauthorised demand of Rs. 19,549/- be deleted from the bill.

3. On notice being issued to the appellant Department, preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint were raised on its behalf on the ground that there was no deficiency in the service and the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Act. On merits the stand taken was that the meter of the Palki Hotel a fore said was checked on the 6th of June, 1990 and its seal was found broken and consequently, it was concluded that there was improper use of electricity and on the basis of the load formula the amount aforementioned was calculated and added to the bill alongwith a sum of Rs. 200/- as the price of the damaged seal.

4. In the replication, the complainant reiterated his locus-standi as a consumer and the patent deficiency in the services provided by the appellant. On merits the stand in the written statement of the appellant was meticulously controverted on each and every ground and further highlighted the fact that no report was ever made by the meter readers to the junior engineer for any alleged broken seals of the meter and a wrongful abstraction of electricity therefrom.

5. In support of the case, the complainant placed on record his own affidavit dated the 10th of January, 1991 whilst the appellant rested themselves content with a somewhat sketchy affidavit of Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, the posted as a junior engineer at Hissar and a copy of the calculations made on the basis of the load factor for arriving at the figures of the amount to be claimed from the complainant. The relevant departmental file and the alleged reports recorded by Shri Raj Kumar Gupta and Shri S.R. Singla were deliberately with held from security.

6. The District Forum in its considered order under appeal regretfully took pointed notice of the fact that file reports of both the departmental officers had not been produced at all. It further inferred from the average electricity consumption of the Palki Hotel over one year, that the complainant had nothing whatsoever to gain from the recordings of the old meter because the ratio of the consumption of their new meter was rather on the lower side from the recordings of the old meter because the ratio of the consumption of their new meter was rather on the lower side than the earlier one. Lastly, the District Forum took the view that from the mere breaking of the seal of the meter (if at all true) a presumption of theft could hardly be raised and in particular when the old meter was not inspected in the presence of the complainant or any of his employees and was purportedly conducted beh