B.K. Taimni, Member—Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

2. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant who was running a PCO and had deposited the bill, raised by the petitioner, well in time, yet when the telephone connection was disconnected, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who on contest allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000 and cost of Rs.2,000. It appears from the order of the District Forum that the connection has been restored on 15.5.06. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, which was also dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record.

4. There is no disputing the fact that the bill for Rs. 1998 was raised by the petitioner against the respondent/complainant. Last date of which was 28.3.2006 and this amount was deposited with the post office, who was the agent of the petitioner, on 27.3.2006, yet the telephon