Complainant/petitioner had taken an electric connection from the respondent.  His premises was inspected by the Vigilance Staff of the respondent and it was found that there was a gap between the meter and the glass, and an x-ray type film object could be inserted resulting in striking the lower meter disk and making it dead.  This fact was confirmed by the M & T Lab.  The respondent imposed a penalty of Rs.1,69,037/-, on the ground that the meter installed at the premises of the petitioner had been tampered with. The petitioner deposited the penalty amount under protest in the year 2002 and filed a complaint before the District Forum with an averment that the average bill of the petitioner for the last one and a half year was the same and he never committed theft of energy.  It was also averred that the petitioner was never given a chance of hearing.

District Forum allowed the complaint and held that the respondents were negligent in providing services and quashed the penalty of Rs.1,69,037/- imposed on the petitioner.  It was held that the petitioner was not liable to pay the penalty amount.  The District Forum directed the respondent to adjust the penalty amount of Rs.1,69,037/- deposited by the petitioner qua the future bills of the petitioner.

Complainant/petitioner as well as the respondents filed cross-appeals before the State Commission.  Petitioner filed the appeal with two-fold prayer – (i) for grant of interest on the penalty amount deposited by the petitioner and (ii) for refund of the amount instead of it being adjusted in the future bills.  The respondents filed the appeal for setting aside the order of the District Forum.  State Commission, by the impugned order, has dismissed both the appeals. 

Complainant/petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision petition.

        This case was adjourned twice to enable the counsel for the respondent to find out whether the respondent has/is contemplating filing the revision petition against the impugned order.  Counsel for the respondent states that he has not received any response to the two letters written by him to the respondents and presumably the respondents are not intending to file the revision petition.

        Counsel for the parties have been heard.

        Petitioner deposited the penalty of Rs.1,69,037/- in the year 2002 under protest.  The District Forum has recorded a finding that the penalty imposed by the respondent was unjustified and directed the respondent to adjust the sum of Rs.1,69,037/- in the future bills.  Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is no longer using the premises in question; that a flat bill of Rs.755/- is being received every month by the petitioner and it will take several years to adjust the sum of Rs.1,69,037/- in the future bills.

        We find substance in this submission.  Penalty imposed by the respondent has been set aside.  The respondent has retained the penalty amount deposited by the petitioner for the last 9 years.  Petitioner has been deprived of the use of his money whereas the respondent has enjoyed the use of the sum of Rs.1,69,037/- deposited by the petitioner as penalty.  Since the penalty had been quashed and the amount has been ordered to be refunded, the respondent is liable to compensate the petitioner for depriving him of the use of his money. 

Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to refute the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that he is not using the premises any longer and that a flat monthly bill of Rs.755/- is being received by the petitioner.   The direction given by the District Forum that the respondent should adjust the sum of Rs.1,69,037/- against the future bills, under the circumstances, is not justified/practicable as the interest accrued on the sum of Rs.1,69,037/- per year would be much more than the amount, which the respondent may recover by the monthly bills of Rs.755/-

Accordingly, we direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.1,69,035/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization after adjusting the sum, if any, due to it from the petitioner.

Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.