Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant is a consumer under the opposite party. It is alleged inter alia that the single phase line was defective and the meter was not working, but the complainant was paying the fixed amount of Rs. 403/- and also paid Rs. 4030/- on 24.10.1997 for the period January, 1997 to October, 1997. The complainant alleged that opposite party raised a bill for the period January, 1998 to February, 1998 and disconnected the line after which the complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 100/- for re-connection on protest. However, no bill was submitted after 7.11.2004 and thereafter submitted bill for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which is allegedly illegal and improper. The complainant again deposited Rs. 10050/- for the electric consumption and also deposited Rs. 10,361/- and Rs.6,248/- as arrear. The arrear amount paid was not taken into consideration. Therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party filed the complaint petition.

4.        The opposite party filed written version stating that the complainant has a Small Scale Industrial Unit to which electric line was provided and the opposite party was regularly issuing the bills. The complainant was receiving the bill from the opposite party till replacement of the defective meter. Admittedly there was delay in the installation of the new meter but revised bill was given to the complainant from 4/1995 to 2/2005. As such there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

5.        After hearing the parties, learned District Forum have passed the following order:-

                       xxx             xxx         xxx

             “ We perused the revised bill submitted by the O.P. on dated 1.7.2007 and found that a sum of Rs. 2853/- has been deducted from the arrear bill and a sum of Rs. 54,604/- has been rectified to be paid by the complainant when the arrear bill amounts to more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. On perusal of the document and lack of evidence from the side of the O.P., we could not understand the way of calculation of the entire arrear bill and we cannot accept the same. However, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the O.P. to submit a fresh revised and up to date bill to the complainant, keeping in view the observation and payment made by the complainant if any.

             The case is disposed of accordingly.”

6.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by waiving a sum of Rs. 54,604/- out of Rs. 1,00,000/-. According to him, learned District Forum committed errors in law by directing the complainant to pay the revised bill which is not tenable under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. He submitted to allow the appeal.

7.        Considered the submissions of the parties, perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.        It appears from the materials on record that the complainant is a consumer under the opposite party and he was paying electricity dues. However, he was approaching for a new meter to be installed. Since the opposite party did not listen and went on raising the bill, the complainant filed the complaint petition.

9.        In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asst. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut vrs. Rahamatullah Khan @Rahamjulla, (2020) 4 SCC 650 the order passed by the learned District Forum of waiving out the bill is not correct. However, we are of the view that regular bills have been issued, but such bills have not been revised by the opposite party is a deficiency in service. But at the same time, the complainant not paying the bill is also called negligence on the part of the complainant.  Moreover, learned District Forum without going through the legal provisions has asked to waive out the money which is not the mandate under Section 14 of the Act.

10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, while confirming the impugned order, we modify the impugned order by  directing the opposite party to remove the deficiency in service by revising the bill till the date of issuance of the bill afresh within 45 days.

11.     The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.