The court held that the consumer's rights must be respected, particularly concerning the testing and handling of metering devices, emphasizing procedural adherence.

1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under S.58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 , against the order dated 5.11.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ˜State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 225/2020 in which order dated 12.12.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 327 of 2017 was challenged, inter alia praying for revising, quashing and setting aside the order dated 5.11.2020 of State Commission and restoring and upholding order dated 12.12.2019 of the District Forum.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Petitioner / Complainant) was Respondent and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as Respondents / OPs) were Appellants in the said FA / 225/2020 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondents were Opposite Parties (OPs) before the District Commission in the CC No. 327 of 2017. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 18.2.2021. Parties filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 22.8.2022 and 24.3.2023 respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that the Petitioner / complainant earlier got temporary electric connection from the Respondent / OP for construction of hospital building to earn livelihood by self - employment. The temporary connection was disconnected on 26.7.2017. Thereafter the complainant applied for a regular connection of 125 KW and the same was installed in the month of May 2017 with meter being installed in the box outside the building. An inspection was done by the officials of OP on 5.10.2017, who concluded that the consumption shown in the meter was very less as compared to the sanctioned load, hence, opened MCB and meter after breaking terminal seals, removed the meter after few days and on getting it tested found that it was running slow by 90.44%, and accordingly an additional amount of Rs. 5,12,896 was found recoverable. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum which was allowed in his favour. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed in their favour. Hence, the complainant is before this Commission in the Revision Petition.

4. Vide Order dated 12.12.2019, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint with costs of Rs. 10,000 and demand of Rs. 5,12,896 raised by OPs vide letter dated 6.11.2017 was set aside and it was ordered that the complainant shall be entitled to refund / adjustment in his future bills. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 12.12.2019 of District Forum, Respondents appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 5.11.2020 in FA No. 225/2020 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint of the complainant.

5. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 5.11.2020 of the State Commission inter alia on following grounds:
(i) the Petitioner was never intimated about the testing of the meter in the ME Lab of the Respondents and thus the testing on 31.10.2017 is not as per prescribed procedure.
(ii) The Petitioner has applied for and has been using the electricity connection for his self - employment and to earn his livelihood.
(iii) Signatures of father of the complainant / petitioner were obtained on a printed proforma / register only for preparing a report.
(iv)