Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.

2.      Here is an appeal 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 factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant in order to eak out his livelihood started a small industry for which he has obtained electric supply from the OPs. It is alleged inter alia that on 8.3.2000 and 5.2.2000, the OERC vide its  order dated 30.12.2003 in Case No. 36 of 2002  asked the complainant to pay Rs.99,806.70 as against Rs.3,33,877/-and Rs.1,08,002.70 as demanded in those bills respectively. Complainant made part payment and power supply was restored but subsequently, complainant was asked for MMFC from 2/2000 to 11/2005 to the tune of Rs.2,01,600/-.Thereafter, the complainant protested the same but the OPs did not settle the claim. So the complaint was filed.

4.      OPs filed written version denying all the allegations. It is further averred that the complainant was directed by OERC to pay Rs. 99,806.70 but MMFC was not charged. According to the OPs though complainant paid the arrear energy charges but he has to pay MMFC for the disconnected period from 2/2002 to 11/2005 as per Clause – 84 of OERC (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004. So, there is no any deficiency in service on their part.

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

                   “xxx   xxxxxx

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part on contest against OPs with a cost of Rs.1,000/-. The OPs shall do well to recall the illegal bill dtd. 30.1.06 demanding Rs.2,01,600/- against complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that demand of MMFC charges is legal one for which same tghas been charged by the OPs. The learned District Forum has committed error in law by allowing the complaint. So, he submitted that such illegal order passed by the learned District Forum should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      Complainant is required to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.      It is admitted fact that the order of the OERC does not show that they have considered the payment of MMFC charges. Regulation – 84 of OERC (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 shows that MMFC charges from 2/2002 to 11/2005 has to be paid by the complainant. The learned District Forum ought not to have passed the impugned order by recalling the MMFC charges of Rs.2,01,600/-. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order being illegal and improper should be set aside and it is set aside.

10.    The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

         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.