PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) 1. Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 27.09.2007 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (State Commission for short) in Appeal No. 838/2005. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the present petitioner/Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (opposite party in the complaint) against the order dated 13.01.2005 passed by the District Forum, Patna (District Forum for short) in Complaint Case No. 86/2003. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- “The Chairman, Bihar Stae Electricity Board and its officials (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to issue a fresh bill without charging interest (late payment surcharge) after setting aside the bill for a sum of Rs.3,68,037/- on sanctioned load of one KV to the complainant in view of provisions contained under Clause 16A of Tariff Notification dated 23.6.93 of the Board within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order and also restore electric supply within fifteen days from the date of payment of the bill and reconnection charge and also directing that at the time of reconnection of electric line the load will be sanctioned to the complainant on the basis of actual required load.” 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/opposite party/Electricity Board filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission not only upheld the findings and order of the District Forum (supra) but additionally awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-complainant for the mental torture due to wrong disconnection of the electricity, besides awarding cost of Rs.5000/- with a direction to the petitioner herein to correct the bill based on the meter reading without late payment charges and taking into account the connected load of 1 KW only and the bill should be submitted within a month. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances which laid to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. The foremost ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party/Electricity Board would assail the impugned order is that the State Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction in making the impugned order, in particular in regard to awarding of compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant although no such relief was granted to him by the District Forum and he had not filed any appeal against the said order. We find force in this contention. The State Commission has committed a manifest error of law by modifying and upgrading the relief granted by the District Forum to the respondent/complainant, there being no grievance from the side of the respondent/complainant in this behalf. At least that part of the order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party/Electricity Board then assailed the other finding and order in regard to issuance of a fresh bill in the particular manner i.e. without late payment charge and taking into account the connected load as 1KW only. It is not disputed that the connection granted to the respondent/complainant was of 1KW. Unless there was a report or finding that the connected load to the meter of the respondent/complainant was more than 1KW for a given period of time, the said order is justified. We, therefore, see no merit in this contention. 5. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and that part of the impugned order by which the State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant is set aside. The rest of the order, including the order for payment of litigation cost, shall remain unaltered. | 
