Respondent had taken a tube well connection from the petitioner in 1995. Opposite parties No.3 & 4 visited the tube well and found that respondent was unauthorizedly extracting the electricity. On the report submitted by the opposite parties No.3 & 4, a demand of Rs.1,53,905/- was raised. Complainant being aggrieved filed complaint before the District Forum. -2- District Forum allowed the complaint with the following reliefs: - “a) Not to raise the impugned demand of Rs.1,53,905/- and instead to issue fresh bill on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the meter of the tube well of the complainant; and b) Also pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as lump sum compensation. This amount shall firstly be paid by the UHBVNL through its Secretary and then will be recovered from the erring officials/officers after holding enquiry; and c) The OP No.1 or any top authority of Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. to hold an enquiry against Ops No. 3 & 4 in view of the allegations made in the complaint and the findings given/discussed in the order including the fact of defending by the UHBVNL by following departmental rules /regulations /instructions, under intimation to this Forum.” Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission. During the course of arguments before the State Commission, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he had no objection to the reliefs granted to the respondent at Clause (a) & (b). Counsel for the appellant -3- (petitioner herein) restricted his arguments only with respect to the relief at Clause-(c) for the reason that the main grievance had already been redressed by the District Forum by granting reliefs at clause (a) & (b). State Commission accepting the request of the counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits regarding relief clause (a) & (b), set aside the order impugned before it qua regarding relief clause-(c). Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition challenging the reliefs granted by the District Forum at Clause (a) & (b) as well. Since this point was specifically given up by the counsel for the petitioner before the State Commission, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this point in the revision petition. Dismissed. | 
