Costs paid.

          These revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they have been directed against a common order passed by the State Commission.  The facts involved and the law point involved are same and similar.  Facts are being taken from RP 4410/2010.

          Respondent/complainant is having electricity connection at his residence and was paying bills regularly as per the meter reading without any default.  On 29.07.2008 he was issued a notice by the petitioner showing dues of Rs.8,557/- on account of recording of less consumption of electricity by the meter installed at the residence of the complainant to the extent of 77.15%.  Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking quashing of notice dated 29.07.2008 with a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation for the undue harassment caused to him.  It was alleged that the meter had been installed by the employees of the petitioner and the seal of the meter was intact, that there was no allegation that the meter had been tampered with; that the notice issued was illegal and arbitrary. 

          District Forum quashed the notice for recovery of Rs.8,577/- and directed the petitioner to adjust the sum of Rs.1,617/- deposited in compliance of the order dated 01.01.2009 in future bills and further to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission partly allowed the appeal and reduced the amount to the extent of amount deposited in the appeal and the benefit accrued thereon.  Operative part of the order of State Commission runs as under:

                             “Therefore, in the cases where compensation and cost has been awarded the same is maintained by revising it to the extent of amount deposited with appeal and benefit accrued thereon and rest amount is hereby deleted.

                             Consequently, Appeal No.1021/2010, 1022/2010, 1023/2010, 1024/2010, 1025/2010, 1027/2010, 1028/2010, 1029/2010, 1030/2010, 1031/2010, 1032/2010, 1033/2010, 1034/2010, 1035/2010, 1036/2010, 1037/2010, 1038/2010M 1029/2010M 1040/2010, 1041/2010, 1041/2010, 1042/2010, 1043/2010, 1044/2010, 1120/2010 and 1180/2010 are allowed partly and the order passed by the District Forum Nagaur and District Forum Churu in respect of cost in these appeals is hereby upheld partly and in the cases where compensation and cost has been awarded is reduced to the extent of amount deposited with the appeal and benefit accrued thereon and rest order is upheld as it is.  Parties will bear cost of appeal at its own.”

          We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  Counsel for the petitioner is unable to displace any of the findings recorded by the fora below.  Otherwise also the findings recorded by the State Commission are findings of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  We do not find any such material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.

          Apart from this, the amount involved is very meager (Rs.8,577/-).  The costs of litigation would be much more than the amount involved.  Dismissed.