Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant is a regular consumer under opposite party. It is alleged inter alia that complainant filed C.D.C. No. 110 of 2007 which was allowed directing the opposite parties to revise the electricity bill of the complainant from 19.12.2003 to 09.06.2009. However, the complainant has asked for replacement of the bill. The appellant revised the bill of the complainant from 11/2003 to 11/2014 @55 units per month although the meter was OK. It is submitted by the complainant that his outstanding bill amount upto 8/2000 was Rs. 2924.30 paisa, but thereafter, the bill was not as per the actual consumption. Since the complainant has alleged before the opposite party about the discrepancies and no action has been taken on the same, the complainant filed the complaint petition.

4.        The opposite parties have entered appearance and filed necessary  written version. It is alleged that since the complainant has admitted that his bill has been revised and Rs. 22,065/- has already been adjusted, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After disposal of the appeal, the complainant filed the complaint petition.

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

                “xxxxx               xxxxx

                    The O.Ps are directed to revise the electricity bill of the complainant from 12/2014 to till date as per consumption and to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) to the complainant towards compensation and cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

                    Accordingly the case is disposed of.”

6.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is already revision of the bill, so further question of revision of bill does not arise. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. He submitted that the entire order sheet  will show that the order which was passed in CDC No. 110 of 2007 has already been complied with. Hence, the impugned order is illegal, perverse and should be set aside.

7.        Considered the submissions, perused DFR including the impugned order.

8.        The grievance of the complainant is that till 2014, there is no revision of bill. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they have already revised the bill from 2003. There is no occasion further to revise the bill after 2014.

9.        We are of the view that even if the bill has been revised from 2003, as per the order passed in CDC No. 110 of 2007, there is no occasion to revise the bill again in 2014. But the grievance of complainant is with regard to period after 2003. Since the grievance has not been heard, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

10.     In the result, we confirmed the impugned order, but in view of the clear order to pay compensation, we modify the impugned order by directing the appellants to revise the bill from 2014 as per the actual consumption and to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the respondent.

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.