The order of present E.A.Case arises out of original C.C.Case No.54/2014 which was disposed of on dtd.03.08.2015. The Petitioner-DHR files the execution for non-compliance of the order in original C.C.Case by OP-JDR. The gist of the execution petition is inspite of the order of the Forum, the OP-JDR without legally complying the order of the Forum unilaterally revised the energy bill, which was served to the Petitioner-DHR after 60 days and the Petitioner-DHR further challenges the procedure of the revision of energy bills which is not in accordance with the law and an amount of Rs.28,427/- is pending on the Petitioner-DHR as an arrear outstanding dues after the revision. This Forum issued show cause to the OP-JDR and the  Accounts Asst.  Authorised Officer of the Ops appeared and filed reply to the show cause stating that as per the direction in the original case the Ops revised the energy bills from the date of installation of ‘Suzhou meter’, after taking 12 months meter reading with an average consumption of ‘42’ units per month, accordingly the energy bills are revised. After revision an amount of Rs.37,085.30 paise is deducted from the total arrear outstanding of Rs.64,966.36 and the Petitioner has to pay Rs.28,420.64 till November,2015, as total arrear outstandings and  seeks dismissal of the execution application as the OP-JDR has complied the order with due sincerity and regards to the Forum.

                            Considering the submissions of the parties and statement of consumer’s account and as per the order in C.C.Case No.54/2014, the Suzhou meter was installed on the 11^th November,2002 and after that the OP-Company instead of taking monthly energy consumption has taken bi-monthly energy consumption reading from November,2002 to 31^st October,2003. As there was no reading of monthly energy consumption was available with the Ops the OP-Company taking  one year  12 calendar months calculated and after  division by ‘12’ arrived into the monthly consumption of ‘42’ units per month, accordingly revised the energy bills. Petitioner-DHR submits that if the order of the Forum would have been strictly adhered by the Ops by making regular monthly energy bills, his energy consumption may be lesser and he has to pay lesser amount than the revised arrear amount.

                            In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the order of the C.C.Case No.54/14 which was disposed of with a direction to Ops to revise the energy bills of the Petitioner after taking 3 months energy consumption from the date of installation of Suzhou meter. The installation of Suzhou meter on 11^th November is not disputed. The dispute relates to taking 3 months monthly energy consumption basing on which the energy bills of the Petitioner have to be revised. It is equally clear from the order of the C.C.Case that no where it is mentioned that Ops will take 3 months consecutive energy consumption and basing on the energy consumption the arrears will be revised. The order was after taking 3 months energy consumption from the date of installation of Suzhou meter the OPs will revise the energy bills of the Petitioner. It is need to be mentioned here that in C.C.Case No.54/14 was an ex-parte order, there is no scope left before the Forum that whether in the month of November,2002 when the said Suzhou meter was installed and subsequently the OPs whether were  taking monthly or bi-monthly energy consumption of the Petitioner ? Ina the circumstances, no new direction can be issued to the Ops to revise the energy bills.  

                               That apart we observe that basing on ‘42’ units of monthly energy consumption the Ops have revised the energy bills of the Petitioner-consumer. An amount of Rs.37,085.39 is deducted and Petitioner has to pay Rs.28,420.64 till Nov.2015 as an arrear amount. Further, we do not see any malafide or ill intention of the Ops regarding revision of energy bills. Ops have revised the energy bills as per the energy consumption data available with the office. The Petitioner in his execution  application challenges the payments which are not reflected  on the revision of energy bills. In this regard, we are of the opinion that at this stage no new grievance can be entertain except the compliance  or implementation of the order of the C.C.Case No.54/14. It is up to the Petitioner to take suitable legal action to redress his grievance. Accordingly, the Execution application is hereby disposed of with aforesaid observation.

                   Pronounced in the open Court, this the 5th day of December,2016.