Case of the complainant (since deceased, now represented by LRs) is that the meter installed for his tubewell connection got burnt on 26.10.1998 and, as per the directions of the petitioner, he deposited Rs.1,000/- on 28.10.1998 for installation of new meter. -2- Thereafter the meter was removed supply was directly connected and the complainant was assured that a new meter will be installed. The complaint was filed with the allegation that inspite of numerous representations and visits to the office of the petitioner, the new meter was not installed. On 29.10.1998, officials of opposite party inspected the tube well of the complainant and found that the same was directly connected with the electricity supply line. Notice dated 30.12.1998 was issued to the complainant asking him to deposit Rs.18,311/- for committing theft and connection was disconnected. Being aggrieved complaint was filed before the District Forum praying for a direction to the petitioner to restore the electric connection through new meter, to amend the bill of Rs.18,311/- and to issue revised bill and compensation for the loss caused due to non-irrigation of crops. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to replace the meter with a new one and to restore the electric supply; to revise the bill of Rs.18,311/- on the basis of last six months’ consumption. Rs.500/- were awarded by way of costs. -3- Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal. While filing the appeal, petitioner did not deposit the amount in terms of provisions of second proviso to Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which had come into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the provisions of second proviso to Section 15 were mandatory in nature and the appeal could not be entertained for failure to deposit the requisite amount. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the present revision petition. Notices were sent to the respondents. Respondent no.1 is present. Respondent no.2 and 3 are reported to have died quite sometime back. Notice sent to the respondent no.4 has been received back duly served. Notice sent to the respondent no.5 has been received back with postal remarks ‘addressee not found on frequent visits’. The dispute involved in this case is of very small amount. In case we accept the revision petition after bringing on record the legal representatives of respondents no.2 and 3 and remand the case to the State Commission, the costs of litigation to either side would be -4- much more than the disputed amount. Keeping this fact in mind, we put a quietus to the protracted litigation and dismiss the revision petition leaving the question of law open. | 
