JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. 2. The complainant, Shri Manish Prabhat has filed a complaint against Bihar State Electricity Board, opposite party No. 1, Executive Engineer (Electricity), opposite party No. 2, Assistant Electrical Engineer, opposite party No. 3 to the effect that they be directed to charge electricity bills amount on the basis of meter reading as well and not to charge D.P.S. (Delayed payment surcharge). 3. Both the fora below found that a bill in the sum of Rs.43,557/- was due against the complainant. The District Forum had deducted a sum of Rs.14,000/-, which was already paid. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above bill is on the higher side. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had given Rs.16,000/- and not Rs.14,000/-. The record also reveals that the petitioner had deposited some amount for the inspection of his electricity. It also transpired that the petitioner did not deposit the electric bills on nail. Consequently, penalty was imposed upon him. -3- 5. Both the fora have calculated the bill and given the finding that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of Rs.43,557/- minus Rs.14,000/-. This Commission is a revisional court. Therefore, this Commission cannot interfere with the factual position unless or until there is fundamental mistake. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. He has no documents to support his case. Mere assumption does not take the place of proof. There is no ground for interference in the order passed by fora below. 7. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. | 
