This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 24/10/2001 passed in consumer complaint no.136/1996 M/s.Indian Aluminium Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v/s. The Superintending Engineer (KC), Maharashtra State Electricity Board.  Upholding the contention of the respondent/org.complainant, Forum below directed to refund the amount paid in excess by way of compensation totaling `1,92,402/- along with interest to the complainant.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the original O.P.

          Undisputed facts are that for its industry respondent/org.complainant (herein after referred as ‘complainant’) was supplied with electricity with a load of 200 KVA in the month of June 1994.  Complainant requested to release the load for supply of energy of 200 KVA to 80 KVA w.e.f. 15/06/1994 and the request ultimately was accepted by the appellant but effect thereof was given in the month of August 1994 in the billing.  According to complainant, the effect ought to have been given in the billing subsequent to 15/06/1994 and should have been reflected in the bills accordingly.  Since it did not so reflect and excess billing was made for the months of August 1994 till July 1995, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, claim has been made to the extent of `2,17,401.62.  Further, till discontinuation of the electricity on permanent basis w.e.f.31/3/1997, during the period August 1994 to July 1995, additional amounts have been claimed and recovered from the complainant.  By letter dated 16/8/2000 appellant agreed to refund an amount of `1,55,844.89 (so recorded in excess). However, the same has not been refunded and, therefore, the same is also claimed in the consumer complaint.

Heard Mr.S.S.Jinsiwale-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for the respondent.

          Appellant disputed the claim only on the ground that though the complainant asked to reduce the load by letter dated 15/6/1994, only after getting further clarification by letter dated 11/7/1994, complainant was informed of the approval of reducing the load by its letter dated 29/10/1994 by the appellant and effect for the same was given from the billing of the month of August 1994.  On the facts stated and undisputed, we could see that effect ought to have been given in all the bills subsequent to 15/06/1994 and, therefore, claim of compensation made accordingly by the complainant, supra, is justified.  Similarly, once the load is changed, to continue billing on the basis of earlier higher load, is erroneous on the part of the appellant.  Forum below rightly considered all these aspects and by a reasoned order awarded the claim including admitted claim of `1,55,844.89, supra, which the appellant itself agreed to refund.  Thus, finding no fault with the impugned order, we further find this appeal devoid of any substance and, holding accordingly, pass the following order:-

                                                ORDER

Appeal stands dismissed.

In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.