AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KARNATAKA State Electricity Board was the opposite party before the District Forum and is now petitioner before us.
COMPLAINANT-respondent is a medical practitioner. His complaint was of the excessive electricity bills where he said rate applicable should have been LT3(b) and not LT3(a) as the petitioner had wrongly charged him of supply of electricity at LT3(a) rates. District Forum on the material on record allowed the complaint and directed that the excessive amount of electricity bill of Rs. 21,225.70 be refunded to the complainant-respondent with interest @ 12% per annum. He was also awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost amounting to Rs. 500/- . Petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission. The only ground taken was that complaint was barred by limitation. This was not accepted by the State Commission and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, petitioner-opposite party has come before us. We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.