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

2.      Here is an appeal filedu/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.      As it appears from the pleading of both the parties that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs. It is alleged inter alia that the OPs have issued a bill for the month of 1.6.2005 to 31.7.2005 for an amount of Rs.1,371/-. Complainant alleged same to be excessive. He made allegation before the SDO but again the bill came for the same amount. He also represented before OP No. 2 disputing the bill but no action was taken. Thereafter, filed the complaint.

4.      OPs filed written versionstating that the bill has already been revised and the complainant has already given rebate. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned President passed the order dismissing the complaint while the learned Members  passed the majority order directing the OPs to restore telephone connection and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum in the majority order have committed error in law by directing to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation cost whereas there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. He submitted that immediately after complaint received, they revised the bill and made re-connection. He submitted that  if the arrear amount is not paid, as per  the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act after due notice the telephone line would be disconnected. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and thereby it should be set aside.

7.       We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants,  perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.     Learned President has passed order dismissing the complaint because the deficiency in service has not been proved. On the other hand, the learned Members of the District Forum have passed the order to reconnect the telephone line and to pay compensationof Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant but there is no observation how there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs when there is already reconnection  made. Admittedly, there is revision of the bill  and reconnection has been provided. When deficiency in service has been removed during pendency of the case or before filing of the case, the question of awarding further compensation and cost does not arise. In our opinion, the impugned order is illegal and improper and it should be set aside and is set aside.

9.      The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.