Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 09.02.2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 24 of 2004.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioners/ complainants are that the petitioners got installed a tube well with the purpose to irrigate their fields and which bears account no. KAP 9. The electricity connection for tube well has an electricity meter and a five HP motor. They have to pay Rs.225/- monthly on flat rates, whereas for a tube well without meter Rs.325/- has to be paid per month. They have also paid for a capacitor which was installed with the connection about 23 years ago.

3. It was further mentioned in the complaint that an amount of Rs.5681/- was shown by the respondent against them in the month of May 1998 and an amount of Rs.834/- has been shown in excess, whereas it was not payable by them. Since, the dispute was not resolved well within time, therefore, the petitioners claimed that they were required to pay Rs.622/- in excess. In the year 1998 that the excess amount of Rs.834/- was again added in the bill of the pe