"any person who hires or avails of any services for <br /> consideration which has been paid or promised or<br /> partly paid or avails of services for consideration <br /> and includes any beneficiary for such services<br /> other than the person who hires or avails of <br /> services for consideration paid or promised<br /> or partly paid and partly promised "<br /> No doubt, clause 39.2.1 of Conditions of Supply empowers the Board to disconnect the connection after six months of the death of the consumer. Since the complainant being legal heir of the deceased consumer of electric energy is also included within the ambit of consumer, so clause 39.2.1 has to be read with harmonious interpretation of Section 2 (i) (b) and also (d)(ii) of the Act ibid so as to allow complainant-heir for execution of renewed agreement with allied formalities in favour of PSEB for chage of electric connection in his name in place of his deceased father within one month with a view to fix liability of consumer/heir in future and to equally protect fiscal interest of PSEB/opposite party. Converse interpretation of the provisions of this beneficial legislation enacted primarily for the protection of consumer/beneficiary by Parliament to broaden definition of consumer will stand frustrated. Reliance is also placed upon a case reported as Surinder Kumar Modi vs. Mukhiya Sachiv 2001 (1) CPR455 wherein it was held that electricity connection though in the name of complainant's grandmother since deceased- complainant being beneficiary would fall within the definition of 'Consumer' though complainant's name was not entered in Board's record.. Therefore, we hold that complainant has the locus standi to file the present complaint being consumer and beneficiary.<br /> 9. Apropos the legality and validity of impunged bill Ex.C3 dated 20/8/07, complainant has alleged that amount of sundry charges and allowances to the tune of Rs.8776/- was added illegally and wrongly as nothing was due towards him and no reasons, whatsoever, assigned to him . The impunged bill Ex.C3 sought to be defended by the opposite parties on the plea that meter was found defective as per report of the ME Lab dated 7/8/07 Ex.R5 and also reported by the JE vide checking report Ex.R4 and the internal auditor vide half margin No.04 dated 13/7/07 overhauled the account of the consumer for imposing the charges of Rs.6053/- and also the amount of Rs.2723/- for the excess refund as the amount of Rs.28477/- was refunded to the complainant due to wrong calculation and memo Ex.R8 dated 18/7/07 was rightly issued and communicated to the consumer vide Ex.R10. This fact is admitted by the opposite parties that earlier bill for the period 30/7/05 to 30/9/05 was excessively charged due to wrong calculation to the extent of Rs.28477/- and refund of Rs.25754/- was to be given as per para-4 of the written statement and also affidavit of Rupinder Pal Singh SDO Ex.R9. However, we find that MCO was effected on 2/4/07 vide Ex.R2 on account of purported defective nature of the meter as the meter was not recording correct consumption. Though vide Ex.R3 meter was reported to be dead and the meter was rightly sent to the ME Lab vide challan No.9 dated 7/8/07 and the same was checked in the ME Lab vide report Ex.R5 and the account of the consumer was overhauled by imposing charges of Rs.6053/- vide Ex.R6. Complainant has alleged that entire procedure was adopted unilaterally regarding checking of the alleged defective meter in his absence as the same was never sent in sealed card board box nor signed by him or his representative nor same was checked in the ME Lab in his presence and also there is violation of time frame of checking of sending the defective meter in the ME Lab and its testing. Regulation NO.64.5.1 and 64.6 and also 64.7 clearly lays down that :<br /> "After charging meter change fee, all the meters removed against MCO shall be first checked by concerned JR and the same shall be sent in sealed card board box and duly signed by concerned JE and representative of the consumer and further its testing would be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative. In case consumer refuses to sign meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept sealed in the Operation Sub Division till final disposal of the case. "<br /> Further Regulation No.71.1.1 envisages that:<br /> "Whenever complaint regarding faulty behaviour of the energy<br /> ts received. Meter Inspector or JE should be asked to visit the premises and test meter of the site with the help of stop watch. If, on testing complaint of the consumer is found to be correct, meter should he immediately replaced. If however any loss thereof is suspected, the dismantled meter should be got tested from the ll Lab and Account of the consumer be overhauled on the basis of result intimated by the XEN/ME. Full details of extra amount assessed to consumer should be intimated to him as a separate bill. If accuracy of the meter is doubted, the same shall he tested in the ME Lab after payment of necessary charges as per Regulation No.71.2.1."<br /> Further Regulation No. 71.2.2 mandates that<br /> "Meter should he sent to ME Lab within fifteen days from its removal, promptly tested and result should he intimated to AE/AEE/XEN in seven days from the receipt of the meter and then it be intimated<br /> immediately to consumer and after getting his acceptance adjust account accordingly. The whole process should in no case take more than a month."<br /> 10. In the instant case we, however, find from the perusal of checking report dated 24/3/07 Ex.R1 and MCO vide Ex.R2 dated 2/4/07 and also finding of ME Lab dated 11/7/07 Ex.R5 that more than three months were taken for sending the alleged defective meter in the ME Lab from its removal and testing of the same and its intimation vide Ex.R10 was allegedly given on 18/7/07 which was clearly manipulated from 18/8/07. I is therefore, seen that opposite parties have committed glaring contravention of its own instructions and Sales Regulations by resorting to unilateral action arbitrarily on the mere basis of report of the meter reader and billing record and illegal finding of the ME Lab and auditor's report Ex.R5 and R6 and consumption data Ex.R7 through impunged memo Ex.R8 and the impunged bill Ex.C3 to shield its own illegal action.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we quash the impunged memo and the impunged bill vide Ex.R8 and C3 for recovery of amount of Rs.8776/- and award monetary compensation of Rs.3000/- for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- payable by the opposite parties within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. Complainant is also directed to renew the agreement with the opposite parties in order to change the electric connection in his name within fifteen days from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 22.4.2008 Member President.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Ashok Gupta vs. PSEB<br /> <br /> 22/5/08 Present : Counsel for the parties,<br /> Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed judgment of today, complaint allowed with costs. File be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Member President.