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

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  case  of the  complainant in nutshell is that  the complainant ‘s father was the consumer under the OP. It is alleged that the meter was installed in the premises of the complainant since February,2002 but  till November,2005 the consumption was 1611 units.  But at the same time  a huge arrear bill showing Rs.23,000/- against the complainant was issued. So, he informed  the OP and came to know that due to arrear against his father  who is no more , there is arrear pending against him. Since, the arrear amount was not paid, the power supply was disconnected. So, he filed the complaint case.

4.            The OP   filed the written version stating that  being  the consumer  who is father  of complainant  has used the energy and there is arrear of Rs.3081.20  till August,1990 and Rs.6602.40 upto  March,1995  and arrear for  Rs.20,655.70 till November,2001 was pending. Since, his father did not pay the arrear dues, they have disconnected the power supply  in the year January,1991.  It is  further averred that there  is arrear of Rs.18,141.50 till November,2001 was pending against the complainant. After receiving the complaint from the complainant they have informed the complainant to  pay  arrear  in father’s consumer no.  otherwise no  electric line will be given. So, the action of the OP is a serious one. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ The complaint petition is allowed on contest without cost. Both the OPs are liable  for deficiency of service for keeping pending of the representation  and by issuing heavy energy bill on load factor basis. So, the OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and fresh electric bill is to be served on the complainant who is liable to pay such arrear in order to get the electric line thereafter. The parties are bear the cost of litigation through out.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted in appeal memo  that   learned  District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives.  According  to the appellant the son is liable to pay pending bill against the father  for  reconnection of the same line  as father  enjoyed the power supply but did not pay bill. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in this case.

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the meantime  the OP has collected the money from the complainant and there is reconnection of the power supply.

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

9.                When the prayer is made for wrong disconnection of power supply and there is reconnection in the year 2002 there is nothing to decide.

10.              In view of aforesaid discussion, we found that the appellant is not inclined to proceed with the case and resultantly the appeal is disposed of being infractuous.

                  The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 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.  

                  DFR be sent back forthwith.