B.K. Taimni, Member—Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, U.P. Electricity Board (now called UP Power Corporation).

2. Very briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint were that there was a 5 Horse Power electricity connection for the tube-well in the name of Mati-ur-Rehman, the father of the petitioner/complainant. It was his case that on 25.1.95, the electricity connection to the above tube-well was disconnected, allegedly on account of non-payment of arrears. Again he made a request for reconnection on 13.2.95 and paid Rs.100 for the same but since the connection was not being restored, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. The notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent filed written version in which his contention was that there was arrear of Rs.2146.20ps as on 23.1.95. Since the petitioner had not paid that money, hence, the connection was not restored. Admittedly, the petitioner filed evidence in support of his case whereas no evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the respondent before the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to restore the electricity connection and also to pay a compensation of Rs.250. Ostensibly, no appeal was filed against this order dated 29.1.1997.

3. When the order of the District Forum was not being complied with, an execution application was filed before the District Forum by the petitioner/complainant. However, Rs.250 ordered to be paid, by the District Forum was paid to the complainant but electricity connection was not restored. Vide order dated 3.5.02, the District Forum, in execution proceedings, directed the respondent to connect the electricity. It was the case of the respondent that they had complied with the order of the District Forum. Since this was contested by the petitioner, the President and one Member of the District Forum visited the spot and carried out the inspection in the presence of Executive Engineer & SDO of the U.P. Power Corporation and came to the finding that the connection has not been energised. Respondent filed a revision petition before the State Commission on 28.6.2002 seeking to set aside the inspection report 3.6.02 of the District Forum. Vide order dated 11.7.02, the District Forum in execution proceedings passed the order under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, through which the respondent No.2 & 3 were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs.2,000 by each of the respondents, and if the fine was not paid then the defendants were to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days. It is in these circumstances, warrant were issued against the respondents against which, again a miscellaneous application filed before the State Commission, who vide their order dated 12.7.02 stayed the operation of the impugned order till the disposal of the revision petition. Warrant of arrest in execution proceedings was also ordered to be stayed till the disposal of the revision petition. The State Commission through a detailed impugned order dated 3.12.03 set aside the order mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not a ‘consumer’. However, in the operative part, it was made clear that it would be open to the petitioner/complainant to apply for a fresh connection or apply for connection being nominated as successor and after entering into fresh agreement as per law and get the same power connection which stood in the name of his late father. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us.

4.We heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the material on record.

5. To begin with, we find, that if material placed on record is an indication, then the disconnection in Jan, 1995 was not in order for the simple re