Complainant/petitioner is a small scale industrial unit.  It was having 445 KVA power connection from the respondent/opposite party.  Due to malfunctioning of meter at the factory of the complainant since November 1993 average bills were raised by the respondent.  Petitioner vide its application dated 30.07.1994 informed the respondent that its production would be stopped in the months of

-2-

August 1994 and September 1994 due to overhauling and major maintenance of the factory and it would use 15 KVA power only from 01.08.1994 to 15.09.1994.  On receipt of the bills for the months of August and September 1994, petitioner found that the respondent had raised the bills for these two months on average basis.  Aggrieved by this complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to raise the revised bills against the complainant on the basis of 15 KVA consumption charges from the disputed period i.e. from 01.08.1994 to 15.09.1994.  

          Respondent being aggrieve filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum by observing thus: -

“The respondent had taken power supply for a contract demand of 445 KVA.  It was provided with duly tested meter to record consumption of electricity. Subsequently, the meter was found defective.  In view of the defect in the meter the appellants charged on average basis taking three months consumption when the meter was in order as per the provisions of General Conditions

-3-

of Supply Regulations.  The District Forum recorded a finding that application dated 30.07.1994 to avail reduced supply of 15 KVA from 01.08.1994 to 15.08.1994 was received on 03.09.1994.  The said application was to be considered.  Before it was done, the direction to realize the energy bill on 15 KVA load is premature.”       

The State Commission held that the complaint filed by the petitioner was premature as the bills were received by him on 03.09.1994 and the application filed by him for reconsideration of the bills had not been decided.

The State Commission has erred in non-suiting the petitioner and dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complaint was premature.  Respondent had raised the bills for the months of August and September, 1994 on average basis.  Petitioner had filed the representation stating therein that it could not be charged on average basis for the months of August and September 1994 in view of its letter dated 30.07.1994 in which it had informed the respondent that it would be ;using only 15 KVA of power against the sanctioned loan of 445 KVA.  Petitioner filed the complaint as the respondent did not

-4-

take any action on his representation.  Moreover, the complaint had been filed against the bills raised by the respondent which had been adjudicate4d by the District Forum.  The State Commission should have decided the case on merits instead of dismissing the complaint as premature.

          For the reasons stated above, revision petition is allowed.  Order of the State Commission is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh on merits in accordance with law.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 31.05.2012.

          Since it is an old case we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of appearance.