PER JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Present none for the Petitioner. Petitioner has been appearing through Kiran Kumar, Advocate, who is also absent. 2. Dr. Sudhir Bisla, Counsel for the Respondent is present. 3. Notices were served on 20.02.2014 for today. 30 days have lapsed so it is deemed to be served on the Petitioner. 4. This is a case of a dispute regarding billing of electricity. The State Commission rendered the following order: The contention of OPs-appellants has been that in case of demand exceeding 5% than the maximum demand indicator the Complainant would be liable for surcharge @ 25% of the SOP charges. The figure found at the spot was to be multiplied by 6 to work by 6 the consumption would work out to 1992 KVA. District Forum has erred in taking the figure at 332 KVA only without applying the multiplier of 6 and this held that the demand has not increased the maximum demand indicator, which was at 520 KVA the multiplier being not applied. District Forum taking the figure displayed in the matter at 332 KVA held that the demand was within the maximum permissible limit and thus the 25% surcharge could not be added. Had District Forum applied the multiplier, the result would have been otherwise, thus the figure displayed at 332 x 6+1992 was the demand indicated and therefore OP was justified and charging the surcharge. Thus, we feel that learned District Forum committed error while allowing the complaint. Therefore, order can not sustain and is set aside, The appeal is allowed, complaint stands dismissed. 5. In view of the Supreme Court Authority in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad (2013) 8 SCC 491, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case. However, liberty is granted to the Complainant to get their grievances redressed before the appropriate Forum as per law.