Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

        Respondent/complainant was a subscriber of the petitioner and was having a domestic electric connection.  Petitioner, in the bill dated 19.3.2006 levied sundry charges of Rs.55,568/-.  Respondent made a representation on 29.3.2006 to the petitioner with a request to explain the imposition of sundry charges of such a heavy amount.  Petitioner did not take any action on this representation.  Respondent thereafter wrote another letter dated 5.4.2006 with a request to the petitioner to permit her to deposit the actual consumption charges of Rs.221/- and to keep the matter regarding sundry charges of Rs.55,568/- as pending.  Petitioner did not take any action.  Respondent wrote another letter dated 21.4.2006 seeking permission to deposit the actual bill for that month and to take action on her representation.  Petitioner again did not take any action. 

        Petitioner sent a communication on 26.4.2006 to the respondent that the work for construction of one Judo Boxing Hall in Sector 42, Chandigarh was allotted to M/s G.G. Constructions.  Electricity dues were debited to the Respondent’s account as the only address available of the defaulter with the Petitioner was that of the Respondent. Petitioner asked the Respondent to pay the dues immediately.

        Electric connection of the respondent was disconnected for non-payment of the dues of Rs.55,568/-.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed.  It was held that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to show that the respondent had used the electricity from the temporary meter installed by the petitioner at the instance of M/s G G Constructions.  District Forum also observed in the order that the electric supply to the respondent was wrongly disconnected on 30.11.2006.  Complaint was allowed in the following terms :

“Therefore, electricity energy suspended at the premises of the complainant be restored without claiming any payment towards the outstanding dues of the erstwhile defaulter M/s G.G. Construction within three days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  OP shall further pay Rs. 5000/- towards compensation for depriving the complainant from using the electricity for about 7 months. This amount of Rs. 5000/- shall include the cost of litigation also.”

Petitioner accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file any appeal.  Respondent, not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum, filed the appeal before the State Commission seeking enhancement of compensation.  State Commission allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.

Aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation, petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

Petitioner disconnected the Respondent’s electric connection without any fault of hers.  Petitioner failed to establish that the respondent was in any way connected to the G.G. Constructions. Only because the G.G. Construction while taking the temporary connection had given the Respondent’s address was not sufficient to debit the outstanding dues of the defaulter to the Respondent’s account.  Petitioner was deficient in service in disconnecting the electric connection of the Respondent.  While ordering restoration of the connection, District Forum awarded the compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner accepted the order of the District Forum and did not challenge it any further.  In the appeal filed by the Respondent, State Commission enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,000/-.  The only challenge in this petition is regarding the enhancement of the compensation from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. 

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Petitioner had unduly harassed the Respondent for a long duration for no fault of her.  State Commission has rightly enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,000/-.

No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.