Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. In the year 1996, petitioner made categories of consumers. Respondent/complainant was put in Category-III instead of Category-II. Respondent made several representations to change her Category from III to Category-II. Petitioner informed the respondent about the change of Category from III to Category II. Petitioner informed the respondent about the change of category from III to II with effect from 31.3.2001 whereas the request of the respondent was to change the category with effect from 1.4.1996. By its order dated 23.8.2002, petitioner directed the respondent to deposit Rs.24,705/- and threatened to transfer the outstanding arrears to the residential property of the proprietor and attach the bank accounts of the proprietor. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed complaint before the District Forum, inter alia, seeking a direction to the petitioner to quash the demand of Rs.24,705/- and not to take action as per their letter dated 23.8.2002. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to treat the complainant in Category-II from inception of the policy and quashed the demand for the arrears of Rs.24,705/- and directed the petitioner to charge the complainant on the basis of tariff applicable to Category-II for the period in question. Further, the petitioners were directed not to enforce the threat to attach the bank account of the respondent and/or other properties of the respondent. Petitioners were directed to pay Rs.2,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal befor the State Commission, which has been dismissed by observing thus : “Admittedly the respondent was running a shop and not the industrial unit for which he was using the water. It is a case of non-application of mind by the authority of appellant while dealing with the application of respondent by giving scant regard to the fact that the respondent was not running an industry and using water for industrial purpose or running only a shop or godown.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Respondent was running a commercial unit and not an industrial unit. As per categorization, a person running commercial unit was to be put in Category-II. Since the respondent was running a commercial unit, petitioner should have put the respondent in Category-II and not in Category-III. Correction to the wrong done has to be done from the date of inception and not from the date of correcting the wrong. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Dismissed. No costs. | 
