days from its removal, promptly tested and <br /> result should he intimated to AE/AEE/XEN in <br /> seven days from the receipt of the meter and <br /> then it be intimated immediately to consumer and <br /> after getting his acceptance adjust account accordingly. <br /> The whole process should in no case take more than a month."<br /> 8. In the instant case ME Lab report Ex.R4 dated 22/8/2007 indicates receipt of challenged meter after more than about two and half month and Lab report was prepared on the same day in the absence of complainant. He has also questioned his consent memo Ex.R3. Therefore, no sanctity can be attached to this impunged ME Lab report as the challenged meter was not tested in the presence of consumer or his representative. The finding of ME Lab about mere scratches on the meter body and raising presumption of its being tampered and committing of theft of electric energy by way of slowing down the consumption appears to be founded on sheer conjecture and surmises. Moreso; when the status of the meter in the earlier bills vide Ex.C2 to C12 was indicated as 'Okay'. Reliance is placed upon a case reported as PSEB vs. Baljit Kaur 2004 (1) CPC 279 by Hon'ble State Commission that "non compliance of instructions in CC No.45/97 of PSEB governing procedure of replacement of challenged meter about its being sealed after being packed in card board box to be signed by consumer and countersigned by Board's officials and further testing of the same in the ME Lab in the presence of consumer/representative vitiates the recovery proceedings. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that impunged memo is not in confirmity with the Sales Regulations and also instructions of PSEB.<br /> 9. Apropos the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to adjudicate the dispute of theft of electric energy , reliance is placed upon a case reported as 2007 CTJ 300 B.S.E. (s) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Neeraj Kumar wherein it was clearly held that "Consumer Forums are competent to settle the dispute relating to theft/dishonest abstraction of electric energy. Supply of electric energy falls in definition of "service" as defined in Section 2(i) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Any dispute arising under provisions of the Electricity Act is consumer dispute. Further every registered consumer of electric energy is a consumer as defined under Section 2(i)(d) of the Act ibid, has right to challenge allegation of theft of electric energy and denial of such allegation by the opposite party is itself consumer dispute while placing reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as HSEB vs. Mam Chand 2006 CTJ 521 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission and Hon'ble National Commission and remitted the matter to the State Commission directing that it be decided on the facts of the case in the light of provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the light of law laid down above, we hold that Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed question of theft of electric energy.<br /> 10. Regarding locus standi of the complainant to file this complaint, there is unrebutted evidence of complainant vide affidavit Ex.C1 that he purchased the house alongwith electric connection bearing A/c No. MR54/164 from its Ex owner S.K. Mittal and has been paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties for consideration of electricity services provided by the PSEB. No doubt, electricity bills Ex.C2 to C13 bears name of consumer Sh.S.K. Mittal but this fact cannot be ignored that complainant agitated against imposition of penalty charges vide impunged memo Ex.R2 No.1323 dated 12/12/2007 . His status as a consumer has however, not been challenged in the letter Ex.C16 dated 17/12/2007 of the opposite party that he was availing electricity services provided by the PSEB against payment of electricity charges vide bills. Reference is also made to case reported as PSEB vs. Parveen Kumar Jain VI (2006) CPJ 157. Moreso, Ex owner has also not filed any complaint for disconnection of electric connection in question. We, therefore, hold that complainant is a beneficiary of electric energy for consideration under Section 2(i)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we quash impunged memo Ex.R2 dated 12/12/2007 for recovery of Rs.11,172/- being illegal, null and void with further direction for refund of amount of Rs.2000/- deposited by the complainant in terms of stay order dated 18/2/2008 of this Forum with 9% interest from the date of deposit till realisation. Opposite party is also directed to pay monetary compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3000/- for deficiency in service for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation within one month 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 oom. <br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 17.7.2008 Member President.<br />