Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is a consumer under the OP. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant has got medium scale industry. On 15.10.2005, he executed an agreement with the OP for supply of power of 93 KW under the category of large scale industry. It is alleged inter alia that after 15.10.2005, he got a bill from February, 2006 to September, 2006 for an amount of Rs.1,64,936/-. Since there is no change in the industry and agreement dated 15.10.2005 remained unchanged, the raging of bill amount was illegal and improper. So, complaint was filed.

  4.    OP filed written version stating that in February, 2006 a fresh agreement was executed enhancing the contract load from 93 KW to 146 KW. Accordingly, bill has been revised and supplied to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxx   xxx   xxx

The OP is directed to revise the electric bill of the complainant as per the agreement dt. 15.10.2005 and shall not demand the arrear bill vide letter dt. 25.11.2006. There is no order as cost & compensation.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is agreement on 15.10.2005 to supply 93 KW of power supply but on 1.2.2006 the complainant has enhanced the contract load from 93 KW to 146 KW. Accordingly, the bill has been raised on 146 KW load basis. Later on the complainant objected and it was revised from 1.3.2006. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part but the learned District Forum without understanding the fact has passed the impugned order which should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

8.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has asked the OP to supply power of 93 KW and accordingly power was supplied. The OP submitted that there is agreement fresh executed for enhancement of the power supply. But the complainant is silent about the fresh agreement executed. The fresh agreement was executed on 23.10.2006 enhancing the contract load to 146 KW (reclassified from medium industry to large industry). The complainant has not mentioned this fact. It appears that the complainant has suppressed the material fact. However, OP admitted that they have revised the bill but the revision of bill is also available on record. It appears that it was originally charged for Rs.2,77,075/- and after necessary revision, it has become Rs.1,64,936/-. The observation of the learned District Forum to revise the bill on the basis of 93 KW from 15.10.2005 is not agreed to because the bill for Rs.1,64,936/- has to be payable from 1.2.2006 i.e. from the date of execution of agreement but the bill has been already revised by not charging the bill from 2005 to 2006 on the next date. The finding of the learned District Forum is hereby not sustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

9.      The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.