JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The petitioner / complainant who is an Advocate by profession applied for electricity connection depositing a sum of Rs.155/- with the respondent followed by a security deposit of Rs.200/- on 29.4.1998. The case of the petitioner / complainant is that he purchased his own meter and produced the same before the Respondent. The meter was checked and the details were entered in the prescribed register. The petitioner / complainant was informed that the meter would be installed soon. This is also the case of the petitioner / complainant that the said meter was not installed despite several visits made by him to the office of the respondent. The petitioner received a bill of Rs.6,569.24 in May, 2001 for the electricity alleged to have been consumed by him. Since no electricity, according to the complainant was consumed by him, and in fact even the meter had not been installed, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. 2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent Board which inter-alia alleged that the electricity meter was duly installed, but the petitioner / complainant did not pay the bills, as a result of which the outstanding amount accumulated to Rs.6,569/- by May, 2001 when the bill in question was issued to him. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 03.9.2004 dismissed the complaint. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner / complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having eventually been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum would show that the relevant ledger was produced before the said Forum, showing consumption of electricity from April, 1998 onwards. A sum of Rs.10,882/- was shown outstanding against the complainant as in September, 2002. The State Commission accepted the finding recorded by the District Forum by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner / complainant. The State Commission also noticed in this regard that no explanation had been given by the petitioner / complainant for not approaching the District Forum prior to 2001. 6. As noted earlier, the petitioner / complainant is an Advocate by profession. It is difficult to believe that despite having deposited all the requisite charges by April, 1998, he would sit silent for more than three years till the bill in question was received by him. Had the meter not been installed at his premises as is claimed by him, the petitioner / complainant would atleast have written complaints to the respondent Board alleging therein that despite his having deposited the requisite charges by April, 1998, the meter had not been installed at his premises. There is no evidence of such a course of action having been adopted by the petitioner / complainant. 7. Though the case of the petitioner / complainant appears to be that the meter against which outstandings have been shown by the respondent was installed in the premises of some other person, no particulars in this regard were given by him in the complaint. If the meter was installed at the premises of some other person, the petitioner / complainant should have been in a position to give the name and address of that person to the District Forum. That having not been done, the inference would be that the meter was installed at his premises only. 8. When I questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant as to how the petitioner / complainant was managing without electricity for so many years, the learned counsel stated that he had been using diesel generator for meeting his requirement. However, there is no such averment in the complaint and there is no evidence of any generator having been purchased by the petitioner / complainant. No affidavit of any neighbour was filed by him to prove that no electricity was being supplied to his premises and that he was using the diesel generator, to meet his requirement. In these circumstances, the finding of fact recorded by the fora below cannot be said to be perverse so as to justify interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. | 
