PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 135 of 2009 Dr. Jai Bharat Sinha Vs. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner has electrical connection bearing NO.SD-13 provided by OP/Respondent and was paying bills, but the transformer of the village concerned was burnt on 25.8.2006, which was replaced on 25.9.2007. Complainant along with other consumers filed application for revision of bill on 4.10.2007 and again on 3.3.2008, but the bills were not revised. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and admitted burning of transformer and its replacement and further submitted that bill of the complainant was revised and prayed for dismissal of complaint. District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint against which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record. 4. Petitioner submitted that inspite of replacement of transformer bill was not revised; even then, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted. 5. Perusal of impugned order reveals that bill of the petitioner was revised vide letter No. 78 dated 24.1.2008 and Rs.274/- were adjusted towards electricity charges and Rs.18.44 were adjusted towards electricity duty and no D.P.S. has been charged during the period transformer remained burnt. Thus, it becomes clear that during the period transformer remained burnt, respondent revised petitioner bill and reduced the charges and in such circumstances, there was no deficiency on the part of OP/respondent. Learned State Commission has not committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.