Taken up through video conferencing.

1.       This revision petition has been instituted under Section 58 (1) (b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 06.07.2021 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh in F.A. No. 1655 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 20.03.2019 in C.C. No. 233 of 2014 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh.

2.      Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist complainant at admission. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 20.03.2019 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 06.07.2021 of the State Commission and the Revision Petition.

3.       The dispute relates to alleged over-billing by the respondent electricity distribution co. The District Commission, vide its Order dated 20.03.2019, dismissed the complaint. The State Commission, vide its impugned Order of 06.07.2021, dismissed the appeal. As such, this revision petition has been filed against concurrent findings of two fora below.

4.       The Orders of the two fora below and the other relevant material documents are part of the record. We see no use in again reproducing the facts and evidence here.

Both the fora below have comprehensively dealt with all relevant issues in the matter. With the reasons recorded, the two fora below have inter alia determined that the old electricity meter of the complainant was replaced with a new one in the presence of the complainant, the readings in the two meters were synchronised at the time of replacement, a ‘panchnama’ was also prepared, even after replacement of the old meter with a new one the units consumed per month did not decrease, the bills were raised as per the actual consumption (para 15 of the District Commission’s Order and para 9 of the State Commission’s Order specifically refer). The crux of the dispute has thus been settled by the two fora below, that there was no over-billing.

5.       We find no palpable misappreciation of the evidence by the fora below as may cause to require fresh de novo re-appreciation in revision. We also do not find any jurisdictional error or a legal principal ignored or miscarriage of justice. Nothing necessitates interference by this Commission in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

The revision petition is dismissed.

6.      The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.