ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—This revision petition filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 685 of 2008 dated 09.09.2008 arising out of order dated 24.04.2008 in complaint no. TC/1056/07 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short, ‘District Forum’) dated 24.04.2008.

2. The petitioner had approached the District Forum alleging that a credit amount of Rs.22,555.65 had not been adjusted by DESU, the predecessor agency of the respondent in its bill payable by 05.04.2002 despite several attempts to resolve the issue. As the petitioner resides alone and was overseas for nearly 11 months, the consumption of electricity was wrongly billed on account of a faulty meter. While one bill was paid under protest since disconnection was threatened, the respondent had levied LPSC which she claims is not justifiable. The District Forum directed respondent to issue bills based on average billing of 200 units per month, Rs.22,555.65 be credited to the petitioner’s account without any liability of LPSC; additionally, it was ordered that debit balance in the statement of account filed by the respondent of Rs.10236/- be adjusted as it was wrongly shown and that all payments by the petitioner from 2005 be also adjusted on the basis of average consumption of 200 units per month while for the period 08.09.2006 to 08.08.2007 only meter rent be charged as the petitioner was out of the country during that period. Payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- litigation cost was also awarded.

3. In appeal, the State Commission partly allowed the prayer of the respondent and modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that the bill on the basis of 200 units per month be limited up to June 2002 till a new meter duly tested to the satisfaction of the petitioner is installed; adjustment of Rs 22,555.65 be done against entire dues from March 2000 after deducting payments already made with no liability towards LPSC; compensation for mental agony of Rs.10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- be awarded. FDR/ Bank Guarantee were also ordered to be returned.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission and is before us alleging deficiency in service by the respondent with the prayer claiming that the respondent be directed to pay her the following amounts:—

(i) Rs.22,555.65 from March 2002

(ii) Rs.10,326/- from 24.04.2008

(iii) Rs.55,000/- from 24.04.2008

(iv) Rs.4,440/- from 30.06.2010

(v) Rs.23,176.16 from 07.10.2010

(vi) Rs.47,000/- as litigation costs

(vii) Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental trauma and harassment in case no TC 1056/2007 before the District Forum relating to disconnection of electricity;

(viii) Any other relief/reliefs

5. The matter was listed on 23.09.2022 based on an early hearing application. Notice was issued to respondent on 30.09.2022 for 16.12.2022. Based on another application for early hearing dated 26.09.2022, the matter was listed on 04.10.2022, the petitioner was present in person. However, none appeared for the respondent. During hearing it emerged that an I.A. (No. 8460 of 2022) had been filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in the filing of the petition. The delay in the filing of the petition is 5020 days as the impugned order of the State Commission dated 09.09.2008 was received by the petitioner on the same date. The reasons for the delay are stated to be that the respondent issued a bill dated 07.10.2010 levying LPSC and in 2015 disconnected the electricity connection. Thereafter due to Covid-19 pandemic and financial difficulties, she could not approach this Commission. The Lok Adalat was approached by her in 2021 and she approached the Customer Care department of the respondent in June 2021 who did not t