Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant, is that the complainant  is a consumer under the OP. It  is alleged inter-alia that  on 05.05.2006  the OP came to Cinema Hall of the complainant and forcibly tried to replace the meter.  The complainant protested. However, on 06.05.2006 they disconnected the power supply to the cinema hall of the complainant till 12.05.2006. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint  not to disconnect  the power supply to the cinema hall  of the complainant.

4.           The OP    filed  written version stating that the complainant was involved with the commercial activity. Learned District Forum  passed order  on 06.05.2006  to restore the power supply   of the complainant, Challenging  that order, the OPs filed Revision petition  before this Commission  passed order  on 08.05.2006 for supplying  power on restored after installation of the new meter. As such, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

         “ Accordingly the Ops are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.36,000/- to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order alongwith cost of Rs.1000/-.”

6.            Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the pleadings and argument of the parties. According to him  there are  other two complaint .cases already filed challenging  the authority of OPs and  out of them one was filed  alleging about disconnection  of power supply and other one was for issuing two additional bills. This Commission interfered  in the Revision Misc.Case No.529/2006 where this Commission upheld  the action taken by the OP. However,  there is order passed in  complaint case No.90/2005  against  which there was F.A. No.378/2006   and same has been disposed of. However, it is  submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the present  appeal.

7.                   Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that  there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP by threatening  to disconnect the power supply  when complainant is ready to pay all the arrears and they are ready to face any eventuality. But the fact remains that OP has threatened  to disconnect power supply and  for  the time power supply was disconnected, learned District Forum appropriately  awarded the compensation. He supports the impugned order.

8.                      Considered the submission  of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.                         

9.                   It is admitted fact that  the complainant has filed two C.C.cases earlier relating  to same matter vide C.C. No.57/2006 and C.C.90/2006.  This Commission has already interfered with  the order passed in C.C. No.90/2006 in F.A.378 of 2006 and set aside same. Also  against order dtd. 06.05.2006 learned District Forum passed  order in C.C.57/2006  this Commission passed order in Revision No.29 of 2006 in following manner:-

             “ Under Rule-55 of the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code,2004  the licencee is authorized  to review the status of the meter already installed in the contest of upgraded technology. Shri Nayak  in view of the availability  of upgraded technology having facility  of TOD( Time and date facility) submits that the opposite party’s meter needs to be changed  in view of the unexpected low consumption. Under Rule-51  the engineer or his staff authorized  by him shall be entitled to enter the premises of a consumer after informing him. Therefore the opposite party can not restrain the officers from examining the working and functioning  of the meter. In the circumstances  the power supply can only be restored if a new meter with TOD facility is installed at the costs  of the opposite party. The order of restoration of power supply is subject to the installation of a new meter. The impugned order is accordingly modified. The petitioners are given liberty to test the old meter by the WESCO MRT team in the presence of the representative of the opposite party. “

10.            The aforesaid discussion of this Commission is clear to show that there is every right  of the OP to verify the matter  of the consumer and accordingly   Rule-50 & 51 of OERC Code,2004 justify the action  of appellant. In the above manner action taken by appellant on 06.05.2006 against respondent was justified. So, question arises  said action as found by learned District Forum has no leg to stand.  Moreover, the action being  proper and  the impugned order having  not discussed legal provision  set out by  the order of this Commission, impugned order is also  illegal.               

              Therefore,  the impugned order is set-aside and the  appeal stands allowed. No cost.                         

              Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.