The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of complying with the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, and involving the Electrical Inspector in cases of defective meters.

Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President—This appeal has been directed by opposite party against order dated 6.12.2005 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which the complaint of Sh. S.P. Gupta was accepted and the amount of Rs.28,502 which was imposed upon him as sundry charges was set aside and further he was awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000 for harassment and mental agony besides Rs. 550 as costs of litigation.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Sh. S.P.Gupta, respondent (complainant) is a consumer of appellant having electric connection bearing Account No. 4001/026500. He had shifted to his house bearing No. 265, Sector-40-A, Chandigarh, in the month of July,1999 and prior to it, he was residing in Government accommodation, being employed as Deputy Controller of Finance and Accounts in the office of Director Public Relations, Punjab, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh. He had been paying the electricity bills regularly since the time of purchase of house. However, in the month of June, 2002, meter reader of the appellant pointed out that glass of the meter had cracked and advised the respondent to get replaced the meter and accordingly he made an application to the appellant to change the meter and the meter was changed in the month of June/July, 2002. Suddenly, vide memo No. 329 dated 28.1.2005, he was informed that the audit party had intimated to charge Rs. 28,502 on account of change of meter as difference of penal charges and actual charges for the period from 6.6.98 to 9.7.2002 and the same had been debited in his account as sundry charges. The copy of the said letter is Annexure C-2. Subsequently, the said amount was added in the bill for the month of October, 2004 to February, 2005. The copy of the bill is Annexure C-3. It was next averred that the demand for the period relating to 1998 to 2002 which was made in the year 2005, after a lapse of period of 6 to 7 years, was time barred and further the appellant did not give any notice in writing asking the respondent to explain his position and thus the demand was raised against the principle of natural justice.

3. It was also averred that the meter of the respondent was never got checked either on his premises or at the laboratory of the appellant, after serving notice to him and when the meter was replaced, then seals of the meter were intact and as such he stated that the amount had been charged illegally and arbitrarily.

4. With these allegations, the complaint was filed for setting aside the illegal demand of Rs. 28,502 and also claimed Rs. 15,000 as compensation for mental tension, harassment and further Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.

5. The appellant (opposite party contested the complaint. It took certain preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable in the Consumer Forum as respondent had not exhausted remedy provided under the Sales Manual Instruction No.158 and further had not served notice under Section 80, C.P.C. On merits, it denied the allegations and stated that the amount was charged by the audit as short assessment for the period 6.6.1998 to 9.7.2002 due to meter glass broken on the basis of complainant’s own consumption for the period August, 2002 to August, 2003 i.e. 369 units per month and as such the amount charged of Rs. 28,502 was correct. It denied the other allegations.

6. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.

7. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 6.12.2005 accepted the complaint of respondent and set aside the amount of Rs. 28,502 which was charged by the appellant arbitrarily and further awarded Rs. 2,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs. 550 as litigation expenses.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent has filed the present appeal.

9. We have heard Mr. C.D. Ranga, Government Pleader for the appellant, Mr. J.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent and careful