Complainant (since deceased) represented by the legal representative, who was a consumer of the respondent, had taken electricity connection from the respondent for running her factory.  On 29.10.1987,  the  respondent  installed  a  check  electric  meter  in the factory.  As per allegation made in the complaint, after installation of the check meter the voltage of the electric power got slow which resulted in closure of the work in the factory.  Petitioner requested the respondent both orally as well as in writing to look into the matter but in vain.  Subsequently, respondent installed another check meter on 16.3.1991.  Said meter was defective.  Petitioner submitted an application dated 23.2.1991 regarding the same to which respondent did not pay any heed.  According to the petitioner, due to sparking of phase electric wires the sparking started and the electric wires fell on the ground, as a result of which, the electric power line of the complainant used to get stopped and the work of the factory suffered.  Due to sparking the check meter also burnt.  Her supply was disconnected.  She had to put a diesel engine to run her factory.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to connect the covered cable power connection in the factory of the complainant from the main pole situated near the road within one month.  Rs.5000/- were awarded as compensation.

          Respondent complied with the direction given by the District Forum and provided covered cable power connection to the factory of the petitioner.   

Petitioner thereafter filed the second complaint before the District stating that the respondent had laid defective and wear and tear cable line for connecting the power connection of the complainant, as a result of which the complainant has not been getting proper supply of power.  Power also remained disconnected from 14.2.1993 to 18.1.1994 and so the recovery of the payment for the said period from the complainant was not justified.  Respondent had sent a wrong bill for a sum of Rs.33,957.40p.  Complainant requested for correction of the bill but the respondent refused to do so.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to correct the electricity bill No. 09911657 and directed that only such amount  be charged from her for the period she has actually consumed the electricity.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been disposed of by the impugned order.  Before the State Commission, respondent stated that bill has been rectified and the same has been reduced to Rs.16,419.10p.  Petitioner-complainant submitted that since there was a deficiency in service on the part of respondent in sending a wrong bill to the tune of Rs.33,957.40p, the respondent be restrained from recovering the amount    of    Rs.16419.10p   or   asked   to   waive   the  same.  State Commission did not accept the plea of the petitioner and put the respondent at liberty to recover the amount of Rs.16,419.10p from the petitioner unless otherwise recovered.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Respondent in pursuance to the direction issued by District Forum rectified the bill and reduced the bill amount to Rs.16,419.10p.  The amount of corrected bill cannot be waived only because earlier inflated bill was sent.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in pursuance of the recovery notice sent to the petitioner, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.36,684/- with late fee charges.  If that be so, petitioner is directed to move an application for adjusting the excess amount paid against future bills.  Learned counsel for the respondent states that if such an application is moved, the respondent shall after verification adjust the excess amount, if any paid by the petitioner, in future bills.

          The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.