Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President—This is an appeal by the GRIDCO (presently CESCO) (sic) against the order of the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, directing to revise the bills in respect of the Consumer No. 1026 of the complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Complainant’s case is, he initially applied to instal a 23 HP Motor for his ice candy factory in his village Thalkudi in the district of Jajpur for which he availed loan from Orissa State Financial Corporation. This was permitted on 23.3.1982 and he was allotted Consumer No. 1026. On 12.7.1982 he wrote to the Executive Engineer that because of his financial difficulty he would like to instal 13 HP Motor instead of 23 HP and, therefore, the contract load should be reduced to that and the bills may be raised accordingly. He issued reminder on 22.4.1984, but it is his case that long after that on 12.4.1993 he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 300/- for the purpose of inspection to reduce the load. It is further his case that some time in the year 1991 the power connection was discontinued. Even though he wrote to restore the power supply, this was not done till filing of the case. He claims that in absence of power he sustained loss as calculated in the schedule given in the complaint petition.

3. Case of the appellants was that they were not deficient in service inasmuch as the complainant was liable to pay Rs. 44,419.20 p. up to October, 1992 towards arrear electricity bill and since he did not pay, the line was disconnected and not only that the agreement was also terminated on 7.1.1994. With regard to reduction of the load in paragraph 6 of the reply they took the stand that the consumer should apply to the supplier with money receipt towards processing fee and furnish the details of the load approved by the supplier previously and details of the revised load. This the complainant did not do.

4. We have heard Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned Counsel for CESCO (sic) and Mr. R.K. Nayak, learned Counsel for the complainant. Perused the impugned order and materials on record.

Admittedly the complainant has been assigned the consumer number. He was permitted to instal a 23 HP power motor. But by his letter dated 12.7.1982, he changed his mind and applied that he wanted to instal a 13 HP motor, since he was in difficulty. He has proved that he sent the application under Certificate of Posting, a copy of which is on record. We accept his case that he had sent this letter and not only that it is presumed that same was delivered to the Executive Engineer at his office. But they did not take any action. Moreover, they have also not come forward with a case that they did not receive any such letter requesting them to reduce the contract load. The complainant has also proved the reminder which he sent on 22.4.1984. But strangely on 12.4.1993 for the first time, as is disclosed from the record, the Executive Engineer wrote to the S.D.O. Electrical, Jajpur to investigate the matter personally and intimate the detailed history of the consumer and if the fact was true the consumer may be asked to deposit Rs. 300/- for the purpose of investigation and calculation of the reduced load. The complainant deposited this amount on 16.4.1993. It is the admitted case of the parties that power supply was discontinued after October, 1990 (sic). This is proved from the Consumer Ledger relating to the complainant, the zerox copy of which is on record. There is an entry in the ledger, “Meter burnt, no supply to Industry since 4.11.1990”. Thereafter the Ledger indicates the last entry showing the outstanding dues of Rs. 33,603.10p. and that perhaps is the demand, that remained on record against the complainant. The Ledger indicates that the complainant was made liable to pay Rs. 29,037.70 p. from August to October, 1990. It is not that the complainant has not paid any dues whatsoever. He claims to have paid Rs. 12,078/- for the period from 4/1988 to 10/1990 and that too by way of insta