The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to decide electricity matters, and the service provider can be held liable for deficiency of service in issuing demand notices and transferring connections without informing the consumer.

ORDER

Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member.—By way of this revision petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the common order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1849 of 2009, Punjab State Electricity Board &Anr. v. Harjinder Singh and First Appeal No. 1149 of 2010, Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed First Appeal No. 1849 of 2009 filed by OPs whereby the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') was set aside, and First Appeal No. 1149 of 2010 filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of electricity vide electric connection No. X-45SP450184H, installed at Village Maliwal, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, having a sanctioned load of 10.99KW, In the year 2003, the complainant applied for a single phase connection of 9 KW. The OP issued a demand notice of Rs. 15,648 to the complainant in this regard and the connection was duly installed by O.Ps. Subsequently, the complainant applied for extension of the load to the extent of additional 2 KW and the requisite fee of Rs. 2,250 was paid on 12.5.2006 for extension of load from single phase to three phase connection as it is mandatory by law that for a load in excess of 10KW, a three phase connection is required. The extension commenced from the month of June and the bill of cycle June-July, 2006 was of the extended load. However, a transformer of 63 KW was installed in the village in the month of November, 2006 After a gap of two long years, the O.Ps. issued a demand notice of Rs. 99,332 to the complainant asking him to deposit the said amount within 15 days from the receipt of the letter dated 14.11.2008, failing which the connection will be disconnected permanently.

3. Aggrieved by the act of the O.Ps., the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 18.11.2009 allowed the complaint and quashed the impugned demand notice of Rs. 99,332 dated 14.11.2008.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, both the complainant and the O.Ps. preferred appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission vide common order dated 28.11.2013 allowed First Appeal No. 1849 of 2009 filed by the O.Ps, dismissing the complaint and First Appeal No. 1149 of 2010 filed by the complainant was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, the complainant has approached this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that installation of a transformer of such a high magnitude i.e. 63KW, is not warranted considering the fact that the petitioner applied for an extension of only 2KW and the complainant was enjoying the connection of 11KW for four continuous months even prior to the installation of the transformer.

8. The learned Counsel further submitted that the OPs issued a demand notice of Rs. 99,332 after a lapse of two years and granted only 15 days to make the payment, failing which the connection to the complainant's factory would be permanently disconnected. He submitted that if the connection was permanently disconnected, the complainant's livelihood would have been at stake, which could not have been compensated by any means.

9. The learned Counsel also submitted that the transformer of 63KW installed was supplying electricity to half of the village as well. In addition, the complainant applied for an extension of merge 2 KW, and by no stretch of imagination can he be made to pay such a huge amount for such a meagre extension. The learned Counsel argued that demanding such a huge amount for such a meagre extension of load clearly reveals t