Heard learned counsel   for the appellant.

2.                 None appears for the respondent.

3.              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.

4.                      The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant is a consumer under the OP. It is alleged inter-alia that the complainant was paying electricity charges on the basis of 1 KW. However, the connected load  of 1 KW was enhanced to 2 KW without any reason. The complainant raised objection and requested for revision of bills.  In January,2003 a china meter was installed replacing old meter. It is alleged that said meter, the consumption under such meter  comes to 815 units for the period January,2003 to April,2003, although he was paying   for 576 units from March,1999 to April,2003. Since, bill was not revised, the complaint was filed.

5.                  The OP filed written version stating that the complainant has got 1 KW connected load.  On his application a new meter was installed. But the complainant did not pay arrear for which notice for disconnection was issued. Thus, they have no deficiency in service  on the part of OP.

6.         After hearing from the learned counsel for the appellant,  learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                   Xxx                   xxx                        xxx

                     “ That, the complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Ops without cost. The Ops are liable for deficiency of service caused to the complainant and they are to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) within 3 months from the date of this order. Parties are to pay their own cost.”

7.           Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  learned District  Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him on the application of the complainant new meter was installed and bill has been revised as per the demand of 2 KW.  Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts. Moreover, he submitted that  as the complainant  did not pay the arrear, the disconnection notice was issued under the OERC Code,2004. So, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and learned District  Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint.

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

9.                      The complainant is required to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had complained about the excessive bill charged from March,1999 to April,2003 but no action was taken. However, she submitted  in writing to replace the meter and  it was done at  her instance. It appears from pleading of parties  that the complainant has not paid the arrears. When there is arrear amount pending, there is justification for  issuing notice for disconnection.

10.          In view of above,  the complainant has not proved the case to show the exorbitant  bill issued against the complainant. Rather it appears that huge amount of arrear to be payable by the complainant.

11.       In view of above aforesaid  discussion, this Commission is of the view that the order of the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside.

             Appeal stands allowed. 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.