Mr. Justice S.S. Dewan, President—This appeal filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board is directed against the order March 21, 1994 of the District Forum, Firozepur, setting aside the demand of Rs. 5,502/- raised against the complainant. The appeal ultimately could not be seriously pressed and therefore, it suffices to notice the facts and merits in the barest outline.

2. Ashok Kumar, complainant-respondent had preferred the complaint on the allegations that he had been duly and regularly paying all the bills for electricity charges for his connection till 11.12.1992. To his consternation, he was sent an excessive and inflated bill of Rs. 5,502/- in the month of February, 1993, which the Board was not entitled to recover from him. Aggrieved thereby, he knocked at the door of the District Forum.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant, it was conceded that the electric meter of the complainant remained non-functional from May, 1990 to June, 1992 and therefore, the bill for the amount of Rs. 3,487/- at the average consumption of 200 units bimonthly was sent and recovered from him. It was stated that later on, the audit party found that according to the circular No. XI of 1990, the complainant should have been charged Rs. 8,989/- at the rate of 492 units bimonthly for the aforesaid period and consequently after adjusting the amount of Rs. 3,487/-, the disputed amount was raised against him.

4. The complainant led evidence in support of his case and proved to the hilt that the sum of Rs, 5,502/- raised against him by the appellant was wholly unwarranted. The District Forum accepting the evidence of the respondent held that the copy of the report of the audit party was not placed on the record on the basis of which the excess amount was sought to be charged from the complainant and that if the meter was found dead, it was for the Board to instal the new one. It was further held that the complainant was not to suffer for the lapse on the part of the appellant and accordingly set aside the recovery of the disputed amount from him. Hence the appeal.

5. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Board was apparently at a loss for any meaningful arguments on merits. He took up the whimsical plea that the appellant had charged the amount of Rs. 5,502/- from the respondent on the basis of the audit report submitted by the audit party and the District Forum had gravely erred in appreciating the evidence on record. We are wholly unable to agree. It is not in dispute that neither any such audit .report has been brought on the record nor was the same produced or presented for perusal of the Commission even at the time of appeal. It is significant to notice that the meter of the respondent remained non functional for about two years and thereafter, it was replaced by the appellant. The District Forum rightly noticed that the primal responsibility of the correct metering of electric energy lies on the Board and its equipment unless tampering or other malpractice is established. It seems right in its view that the respondent cannot be held liable for the fault of the meter, if any and it is for the appellant-Board to either have checked the same or replaced if it was defective. The District Forum was right in holding that unless it is established that the respondent had either tampered or consumed more electricity than shown in the bills, he cannot be arbitrarily burdened with additional charges.

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

––