BAKUL KHANDELWAL vs GIRISH GOYAL

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

VERY briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant initially got a meter installed after getting the electricity connection, which was replaced by respondent, Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, and have started raising the bills on the basis of the reading of this meter. It is apparent that the respondent Board installed its first meter in April, 1999, which was replaced in November, 2000 which was again replaced by an electronic meter on 17. 3. 2001. During all this period, the respondent Board was raising the bill on average basis. It appears that a bill amounting to Rs. 7,065 was raised in April 2001 which on representation by the petitioner was reduced to Rs. 3,500 but the reduced amount was added in the bill for the period of May 2001. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who dismissed the complaint except that the respondent Board was directed to return the two old meters to the appellant. On an appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, it quashed the order of returning the meter as also quashed the bills issued in the months of April and May 2001 and directed the respondent Board to raise the bill either on the basis of actual reading, if available, or on average basis. Not satisfied by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us. The petitioner, in writing, made a request that the case be decided on the grounds of revision, filed before us.

We have seen the memo of revision. The ground taken is that since, in the bills raised by the respondent Board, the cost of two meters was included, hence he was entitled to return of these two meters. As already referred to earlier, the State Commission has clearly directed that the bills will be raised based on actual reading of the meter, if available, or on average basis, as has been done in earlier months. In these circumstances there is no question of respondent Board raising fresh demand including the cost of the ''meters'' in the Bill. In view of this, we see no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed.

NO order as to costs. Revision dismissed.