Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No. 653 of 2009. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sawai Madhopur in complaint case No. 387 of 2008 filed by the present petitioner praying for quashing the bills amounting to Rs.15000/- issued by the Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint but the State Commission in appeal on consideration of the matter, has partly accepted the complaint by giving a direction to the Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited that they should act upon the complainant’s complaint in regard to the fast running of the meter (which was earlier installed and it was replaced by a new meter on the request of the complainant) and take necessary action. We have heard Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka, learned counsel for the petitioner and considered his submissions. -3- The petition has been filed after a delay of 37 days with an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, we condone the said delay. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioners-complainants submits that the order of the State Commission is not clear on the question as to whether the grievance of the complainant in regard to the fast running of his previous meter showing high consumption of electricity is still alive and is to be considered by the Electricity Authority-Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. We have already noted the order passed by the State Commission. In our view, the order is very clear and it has already directed the opposite party No. 1 to consider the grievance of the complaint in regard to the fast running of the meter as had been projected by them before the Electricity Authority. So far as the bill of Rs.17,500 is concerned, the Jaipur Vitran Nigam Ltd. could satisfactorily explain before the fora below that the said amount was payable by the complainant as he had misused the electricity connection by putting it to use for certain various commercial purpose, although the connection was granted purely for agricultural purpose and has also used excessive load. -4- We see no infirmity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is dismissed. | 
