PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER The factual matrix of this case are that the respondents released a 12.5 HP tubewell connection under AP category to the petitioner which was being used for irrigation purposes. It is stated that the petitioner got installed a transformer for the purpose at his own cost under the SFS scheme by paying Rs.62,500/- to the respondents on 6.10.1999. According to the petitioner, the transformer was being used only for the electric supply to the petitioner. After installation of the transformer, the respondents changed the transformer without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner sent a registered notice on 23.10.2004 in continuation of his earlier application dated 8.9.2004 but in spite of his requests, the respondents did not change the transformer; rather, they allegedly put the load of more connections on the newly installed transformer. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have no right to exchange the transformer which was owned by the petitioner without any notice and consent of the petitioner. It is also his grievance that due to the negligence of the respondents, the petitioner suffered heavy loss due to disruption in supply of electricity to his tube well because of the heavier load attached to the new transformer installed in place of the one owned by him and installed earlier under the SFS scheme. Because of this, the electric motor did not work properly and as such there was loss to the crops of the petitioner of the order of Rs.10,000/- per acre. A consumer complaint, therefore, came to be filed by the petitioner before the District Forum praying for direction to the respondents to restore the transformer which was earlier installed under the SFS scheme and also payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner/complaint by the OPs/respondents. 2. On being noticed, the respondents filed their written statement before the District Forum in which it was admitted that the connection to the petitioner was released on priority under SFS scheme for which a 25 KVA transformer paid for by the petitioner, was installed. This transformer, however, came to be replaced by 63 KVA transformer because the load of the village Rora was much more and hence it was decided to change/augment the capacity of the transformer in the best interests of the consumers, including the petitioner. No amount whatsoever was charged at the time of replacement/augmentation of the transformer and there was no deficiency in the supply of the electricity to the complainant. It was categorically stated in the written statement by the OPs/respondents that there was absolutely no interruption in the electricity supply to the complainant tube well except the regular cuts and hence any loss caused to the complainant on account such replacement/augmentation was denied. 3. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the material placed before it, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondents to restore the old transformer earlier installed by the petitioner under SFS scheme at the old place and also to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the OPs/respondents filed an appeal before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (tate Commission for short) challenging the order of the District Forum. The appeal of the respondents was allowed by the State Commission vide its order dated 30.5.2011 thereby setting aside the order of the District Forum. In these circumstances, the complainant/petitioner has now approached this Commission challenging this order of the State Commission through the present revision petition. 4. We have heard Mr. S.C. Paul, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. No specific instance or detail of the alleged interruptions in the power supply or deficiency in service as a sequel to the replacement/augmentation of the capacity of the earlier transformer has been furnished by the petitioner. The only point which has been contended by the learned counsel is that since the 25 KVA transformer was installed at the expense of the petitioner, the same could not be changed by another transformer which allegedly caused deficiency in service regarding the supply of power to the petitioner tubewell. The complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, a copy of which is placed on record, also does not give any instance of interruption/disturbance in the supply of electricity which could be linked to the replacement of the transformer. The State Commission, while considering the appeal of the petitioner, has taken pains to examine the complaint of the petitioner in the light of the conditions of the scheme under which the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.62,500/- to the respondents for release of connection to his tubewell on priority by installing a 25 KVA transformer. Not finding any deficiency on the part of the respondents, the State Commission has reversed the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal of the respondents. While setting aside the order of the District Forum, the State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of its impugned order:- . It is an admitted fact that the respondent got the tubewell connection of 12.5 BHP for which a transformer of 25 KVA was installed under SFS scheme and that the respondent paid a sum of Rs.62500/- to the appellants for the release of this connection. The respondents produced on record a commercial circular No.9/2001 dated 18.1.2001 to prove that the replacement of the changed transformer shall be the responsibility of the consumer, therefore, he was sole owner and beneficiary of the transformer installed under SFS scheme. Perusal of this document shows that the circular has been issued for the release of tubewell connection under wn Your Tubewell Schemeand not under SFS scheme. The learned District Forum has relied upon this circular which is not at all applicable to the scheme under which the connection was released to the respondent. The appellants have placed on record a copy of the circular number 29/92 dated 14.8.1992 and circular number 5/2001 dated 16.1.2001 which directly deal with the policy for release of the tubewell connection under Self Finance Scheme. The appellants have contended that under SFS the consumer only gets the priority for getting connection over other general category consumers but transformer installed becomes the property of the PSEB. This contention of the appellant has merit because in the opening para of the circular number 29/92 it has been mentioned as under:- t has been decided that further demand notices to the pending tubewell applications be issued on priority under Self Financing Scheme 1992 applicable throughout the State. 10. Under this scheme the consumers were required to pay the following charges:- (i) Earnest money @ of Rs.200/- per BHP subject to minimum of Rs.1,000/- per application which shall ultimately be adjusted against the cost of service line. (ii) The cost of entire service line (inclusive of HT and LT line) shall be charged @ Rs.50/- per meter subject to a minimum of Rs.2,000/- which shall not be refundable. (iii) The transformation charges @ Rs.1,000/- per BHP shall be recoverable in addition to the cost of service line. These charges shall be adjustable against energy bills after 5 years from the date of deposit and shall carry no interest. These charges will be levied whether new transformer is required to be installed or not or whether connection is given from existing transformer with or without its augmentation. 11. Evidently, the connections under this scheme are released on priority on the payment of some additional charges as listed above but nowhere in the circular it has been mentioned that the transformer installed for the release of the tubewell connection will be the sole property of the consumer or no additional load of any consumer or villager will be put. On the contrary, it is mentioned that connection under SFS scheme can be given from the existing transformer with or without its augmentation. It has been noted that while adding the load of adjoining Rora village on the transformer of the respondent, the appellants had enhanced the capacity of the transformer from 25 KVA to 63 KVA for which no extra cost was recovered from the respondent. Moreover the respondent has not placed on record any document or led any evidence to show that he had suffered any loss on account of change of transformer. 12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellants were within their rights to change the transformer with the higher capacity in order to watch the interest of the consumer of the entire village. The appeal of the appellant is accepted and the order of the learned District Forum is set-aside. Consequently the complaint of the respondent is dismissed. 5. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and do not find any legal infirmity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Nothing has been placed before us by the petitioner which would persuade us to interfere with the impugned order. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and hence dismiss the same at the threshold with no order as to costs.