APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Sabar Ali Chauhan, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Surender Singh Hooda, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 30th MAY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 22.07.2013, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 374/2013, DO UHBVNL sub Division, Garhi Birbal Karnal versus Kherdinvide which, while allowing appeal, the order dated 3.05.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal allowing the consumer complaint no. 517/2012, was set aside and the consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant has an electricity connection no. A.P.-24-0038, old No. RJ-0038 in his name taken from the respondents/OPs and that he received a bill dated 27.11.2011 from the OPs demanding sundry charges of ` 8,956/- to be paid by 07.12.2011. The complainant visited the office of the OPs and requested to correct the bill, but they again sent the bill dated 30.01.2012 with amount of sundry charges as ` 10,592/-. On the request of the complainant, the sundry charges were deleted and a routine bill of `_1973/- was received which was paid vide receipt dated 17.04.2012. However, in the next bill dated 03.06.2012, sundry charges of `_10626/- were shown, but they were again deleted and a routine bill of ` 300/- was sent. Again bill dated 30.09.2012 mentioning sundry charges of `_10997/- was received. The OPs did not accept his request to delete the said charges and threatened to disconnect the electricity supply. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the consumer complaint in question was filed requesting that the sundry charges of `_10997/- should be deleted and a compensation of `_50,000/- should be paid for deficiency in service. The District Forum vide their order dated 03.05.2013, allowed the complaint and held that the OPs were not legally entitled to recover the amount of sundry charges mentioned in various bills from time to time. They directed to withdraw the demand for sundry charges within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. An appeal was filed against this order before the State Commission by the OPs which was accepted vide impugned order and the order of the District Forum was set aside. It was held by the State Commission that the tubewell connection was shifted by the OPs from one place to another under HVDS scheme for which the complainant was liable to pay span and cable charges. The amount of ` 8,956/- was demanded by the OPs on account of cost of one span and cable charges for which the complainant was bound to pay. The consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the copies of bills issued on different dates in which the amount of sundry charges has been mentioned. In the bill dated 27.11.2011, an amount of ` 8956/- has been mentioned as sundry charges/allowances. In bill dated 30.01.2012, an amount of `_10,592/- has been shown as arrears. Similarly in bill dated 3.05.2012, a sum of `_10626/- has been shown as arrears and in bill dated 30.09.2012, a sum of `_10997/- has been shown as arrears. The learned counsel stated that the OPs had wrongly demanded the amount of sundry charges from the complainant. Further, the impugned order had been passed at the back of the petitioner as, on the date of hearing before the State Commission, he could not reach in time and was proceeded against exparte. Further, the complainant had paid amount of `_15,642/- to the OPs in accordance with the bill issued on 29.09.2013, but the said amount was paid under protest. The learned counsel stated that the State Commission had wrongly observed that the electric connection was shifted by the OPs on the request of the complainant. The OPs had not given him any demand notice/show-cause notice regarding the payment of the said charges. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the OPs stated that the transformer of the complainant was changed in the HVDS scheme and at that time, he got shifted his connection from original place to another place. When the OPs came to know about the shifting, it was found that one span and other material had been used for the said shifting and hence an amount of `_8956/- was found recoverable from him. The OPs had the right to recover the said amount, as they were only charging for the material used and they had not imposed any penalty on the complainant. 6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The contention of the petitioner/complainant that he was not heard by the State Commission before pronouncing the order is not valid as the State Commission have observed that the petitioner failed to appear before them despite service and hence, was proceeded against exparte. The petitioner stated during arguments that he had reached the office of the State Commission late on that date, but this contention has not been mentioned in the revision petition, meaning thereby that no sufficient explanation has been furnished by the petitioner for not attending the hearing before the State Commission. Further, the OPs have stated that they had raised the demand of sundry charges of `_8956/- as cost of the material used by the complainant for the shifting of electric connection. The State Commission have rightly observed that the complainant is liable to pay cost of span and cable charges to the OP. The petitioner has not been able to state any genuine reasons why the said amount should not be recovered from him. 7. In the light of the above facts, it is held that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error and the same is confirmed. The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.