No one appears for petitioner even on second call. A communication has been received from petitioner, who happens to be a senior citizen to decide the issue on merit without his presence. The merit of case is accordingly being considered. Petitioner is a consumer of respondent-board for availing electricity for which a meter installed in his premises was replaced by a new electronic meter on 11.01.2003. As electronic meter was recording excess consumption of energy, complaint was made with respondent in 2003 and also in 2007. This meter was tested, which showed excess consumption of energy to the extent 46.66%. As refund of excess payment made towards energy charges was not made, a consumer complaint was filed. District Forum directed adjustment of Rs.16,461/- against demand raised by board and also to pay compensation of Rs.6,300/- alongwith litigation cost. Both petitioner and respondent preferred appeals before State Commission and State Commission having taken notice of fact that since grievance against excess consumption was raised by petitioner as early as in the year 2003 and meter having been found recording excess consumption, board was required to refund excess payment made by petitioner right from February, 2003 till the date of testing of meter. Compensation of Rs.6,300/- was also reduced to Rs.3,000/-. Now, grievance of petitioner in revision is that no adequate compensation was awarded, regard being had to mental agony and suffering suffered by petitioner since substantive relief has been granted by State Commission alongwith compensation, finding of State Commission does not require interference in revision. Revision petition being without substance is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER | | 
