Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President— By this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act” herein) the unsuccessful complainant questions the correctness and legality of the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 477/89 by which the complaint was dismissed. The complainant had obtained an electric connection for running oil expeller. His consumer No. is 68. According to him he is regularly paying the charges according to the bills supplied to him from time to time. On 11.8.1989 the complainant received the bill for Rs. 9,246.14. According to him the bill was erroneous for his regular consumption as shown in the bill was 440 units. He made, enquiries. He was told that the electric charges were also included as the meter of the appellant was running slow. On 14.8.89 the opposite parties-respondents removed the meter from the premises. It was prayed that the bill relating to August, 1989 in which Rs. 9,246.14 have been additionally mentioned may be cancelled and a direction may be issued to the opposite parties not to realise this amount from him. It was prayed that Rs. 1,000/- may be awarded as compensation to the complainant from the opposite parties.

2. The opposite parties submitted the version of the case contesting the complaint. It was stated by them that the consumption of the complainant/appellant was 1500-2000 units per months but from August, 1988 to June, 1989 the meter was running slow and did not record the correct reading of the electricity consumed. The binder submitted a report to this effect. In accordance with the directions given by the audit party the consumptions for the months of July, June and May, 1988 average was taken and these charges were included in the bill in question or the period - August, 1988 to June, 1989 after giving credit for the amounts that had already been deposited. The amounts deposited by the complainant in this regard were only Rs. 1246.14. It was alleged that from August, 1989 the meter was changed and thereafter the consumption recorded is 1500-2000 units every months. The bill in question was in accordance with the Rules. It was stated that when the meter became defective, then in accordance with Condition 19 of Rajasthan State Electricity Board General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges Relating to Supply of Electricity hereinafter referred to as “the conditions” average of month could be charged. Photostat copy of the binder’s containing the meter reading record card was submitted alongwith the calculation paper how the figure of Rs. 9246.14 was arrived at.

3. In support of the complaint affidavit of Shri Sita Ram was submitted which is dated 26.8.1989. Thereafter affidavit of Shri Radhey Shyam dated 3.12.90 was submitted. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the meter was running slow and that from the meter reading record card (consumption chart) produced before the District Forum it is clear that the consumption fell low during the period from August, 88 to June 89. Thereafter the meter was replaced and after tin replacement of the meter, it showed a rise. On the basis of this the District Forum opined that the meter was defective and therefore the additional charges sought to be recovered by the opposite parties for the period of August, 88 to June, 89 are correct and justified. Condition No. 19(c) reads as follows :

“(c) Accuracy :Should there be a dispute regarding the accuracy of the meter/meters, notice thereof is to be given by either party to the other as the case may be, for its testing by the Board or the Electrical Inspector to Government of Rajasthan in accordance with Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In the case of the consumer giving such notice to the Board for the testing hereby the prescribed fee is to be deposited by him therewith. This fee shall be refunded to the consumer except in the case meter after test is found to be correct within the limits presc