Mr. Justice V.S. Kokje, President — This is an appeal filed by the complainant against the majority decision of District Forum, Rewa holding that the complaint — is not maintainable at the instance of the appellant who is not a consumer. One of the members of the Forum however, has taken a different view.

2. The complainant contended that an electric connection was taken by his father late Mohanlal. After the death of Mohanlal the complainant is using the electricity through that connection and is paying the bills. The respondents-Officers of the M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter called the M.P.E.B.') raised a bill of Rs. 4,318.05 for the period from July 1986 to March 1988 on the ground that the meter did not work during that period and, therefore, the consumer was not earlier billed for consumption during that period. The bill was raised on the basis of average consumption for the previous three months. The complainant challenged this in his complaint.

3. The learned President of the Forum and Smt. Sitara Saxena took the view that unless all the legal representatives of late Mohanlal join in making the complaint, the complaint cannot be heard. They also held that the amount was due because the Audit Party held it to be due. Consequently, the majority of the Forum dismissed the complaint. Shri Raghavendra Singh the other Member held the complaint to be maintainable and also held that only on the basis of Audit objection the amount cannot be said to be due.

4. Having heard the parties and having perused the record, we are of the view that the majority decision of the Forum is wrong. The complainant has come up with a case that after the death of his father he has been using the electric supply through the connection and has been paying the bills. There is nothing on record to contradict this. In the definition of Consumer contained in Section 2(l)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a beneficiary of services for consideration paid or promised is also included when such services are availed of with the approval of the hirer. Now even if. It is assumed that after the death of Mohanlal all of his heirs and successors became the joint owners of the connection, when the complainant has come up with a case that he alone is utilising supply of electricity through the connection and is paying the bills, he has to be taken to be a beneficiary of electric supply with the approval of all those who are supposed to have hired the services of M.P.E.B. for it. Even under the Civil Procedure Code a person who intermeddles with the property of the deceased is taken to be the legal representative of the person. We therefore hold that the complainant is a consumer in respect of supply of electricity by the M.P.E.B. through the concerned connection and has a right to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the M.P.E.B. has based the claim on an Audit report and not on actual consumption. According to the complainant the meter had not stopped working during the period. The Supreme Court in M.P.E.B. v. Basantibai (AIR 1988 SC 71) and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Hamiddulah Khan v. Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board (1982 MPLJ 623) have held that whenever a dispute as to the defects in meter is raised it has to be referred to the arbitration of Electrical Inspector and till then it cannot be said that a particular amount was due. Any claim by the M.P.E.B. on the ground that the meter was defective or did not work when disputed by the consumer has to be referred to the Electrical Inspector. Moreover, it is beyond comprehension that M.P.E.B. is claiming an amount said to be due for the period July 1986 to March, 1988 by raising a bill for the first time on 3rd March, 1992. It is extremely doubtful whether such a claim is not hit by laws of limitation. The M.P.E.B. has therefore no right directly to demand on the basis that the meter was not working from the consumer. The