:: O R A L O R D E R :: Per Shri. S. G. Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member. 1. The present appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 29.02.2008 in complaint case No. 430/2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar. 2. The complainant’s case before the Forum is that, he runs Hotel Sai Palace, Shirdi District Ahmednagar for his livelihood. It is contended that, he had taken electric supply for running the hotel and he was allowed 978 wt. electricity consumption. It is contended that on 10.09.2007. The respondent no.1 visited the premises of the complainant and found that, the meter is running slow by 48.5 %, accordingly inspection report was given to the complainant. The panchnama was drawn in presence of the complainant. It is contended that, the meter was removed on the same day for testing. On 11.09.2007 the meter was sent to testing at Nashik where same was found running slow by 36.4 % accordingly panchnama was drawn in presence of complainant. It is contended that, the complainant was given the different bill of 1,11,240/- for which the complainant approached the Forum. 3. The present respondents appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. They are not at dispute that, the complainant is there consumer. Complainant is using electricity for commercial purpose thus; he is not a consumer as per C. P. Act. It is contended that, they had visited the complainant’s premises on 10.09.2007 and it was found that, meter is running slow by 37.5 %. It is contended that, the panchnama of said electric meter was executed in presence of pancha’s and in presence of complainant. The meter was sent to Nashik Division on 11.09.2007 where meter found slow by 36.6 %. Accordignly panchnama was drawn. As the meter running slow the difference bill was given to the complainant. There is no deficiency on their part. 4. Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order complainant came in appeal. 6. Notice was issued to the respondent. None appeared on behalf of respondent. We heard learned counsel Shri. P. M. Kulkarni for the appellant. We perused the papers. On perusal of papers it reveals that, the respondents’ squad had visited the complainant’s premises on 10.09.2007 and the meter was found running slow in their visit. It is also appears that accordingly panchanama was drawn and meter was removed and the same was sent Nashik Division for testing. It is also appears that meter tested and meter was found running slow by 36.6%. Accordingly panchnama was drawn in presence of the complainant. Forum has considered all these aspect in right perspective. We do not find any deficiency on the part of respondent when the difference bill was given as meter was running slow. Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. We are not inclined to admit the appeal. We pass following order. :: O R D E R :: 1. Appeal is dismissed summarily. 2. The amount deposited in the Forum by the complainant is to be adjusted towards the bill. ( K. B. Gawali) (Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh) Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Kalyankar | 
