Aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 1379 of 2004, Haryana State Electricity Board (Now UHBVNL) has filed this revision petition. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 01.03.2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat whereby the complaint filed by the respondent was partly accepted with the following directions:- “Accordingly, the respondents are hereby directed to refund the penalty amount of Rs.1,16,690/- and Rs.5500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount with the respondents till the realization of the amount. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- for causing him unnecessary harassment and humiliation by the respondents. With these observations and findings, the present complaint stands accepted and the respondents are directed to make the compliance of this order -3- within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this order.” In appeal, the State Commission taking note of the circular No. 27 of 1991 which had the effect of providing amnesty to the domestic and non-domestic consumers who were making unauthorized extraction of load in excess to the sanctioned load, had dismissed the appeal. We have heard Mr. R. S. Badhran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. K. Bachchan, learned counsel for the respondent and have also made queries from Shri Ajmer Singh, General Manager (Commercial & Administration) of the petitioner-Nigam. During the course of his submissions, Mr. Badhran has invited our attention to two other Sale Circulars No. 34 of 1993 & 2 of 1995 dated 19.10.1993 and dated 25.01.1995, respectively, which in the reckoning of the petitioner-Nigam, had the effect of superseding/amending the earlier Sale Circulars No. 4 of 1991 and 27 of 1994. These circulars were not filed or pointed out either to the District Forum or to the State Commission during the course of hearing and, therefore, the fora below going by the earlier circulars No. 4 of 1991 and 27 of 1994, answered the complaint and then the -4- appeal and in our opinion, rightly so because going by the said circulars, the penalty imposed by the petitioner could not have been levied. Since the contention is that the unauthorized extraction of energy was detected in the year 1995 in this case of the respondent, sales circulars as was in vogue or in force on the date of detection of the extraction of energy would cover the facts of the present case and, therefore, the petitioner has done no wrong in levying the penalty. Had the circulars No. 34 of 1993 and 2 of 1995 been filed before the fora below, perhaps decision would have been different. We are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration in the light of the above referred circulars No. 34 of 1993 and 2 of 1995 and any other material which the parties may like to produce. In the result, we partly allow the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the fora below and remit the compliant back to the concerned District Forum, Sonepat for deciding the same afresh after taking into account all the relevant material including the above referred circulars No. 34 of 1993 and 2 of 1995. This will be subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent because they failed to file these circulars at the appropriate stage. -5- The parties are directed to appear on 20.04.2011 before the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat for receiving further directions in the matter. The cost shall be paid on the said date by the petitioner. The District Forum shall decide the complaint expeditiously within three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. | 
