Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. At the time of calling  of DFR, we find that this is a case of 2003 and the case can be disposed of  basing on the material available on record.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The case  of  the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant   is a consumer under the OP. It is alleged inter-alia that upto 25.01.2002 he has paid the part of the arrear dues and he was to pay rest of the amount. It is further alleged that on 29.01.2002  the MRT squard  of the OP visited  their house without any prior notice and found that the complainant was using the energy by by-passing  the meter. Thereafter they prepared the verification report and penal bill. The complainant after receiving the bill objected same. Since, no result came out to solve the problem, the complaint  was filed.

4.            The  OP     filed written version stating that  they have  followed the entire OERC Code,1998 and accordingly made inspection. They challenged the filing of the case. Thus, they submit that due to non-payment of the arrear amount and penal amount, the electric supply was disconnected. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

                         Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                  “In the result the dispute is allowed against the Ops. OP No.2 is directed to give power supply to Tarini spices situated Solapata forthwith as well as to cancel the penality bill dtd.14.02.02 which has been issued against the above named complainant. This above order is to be complied within one month from the date of pronouncement of the order. No cost.”

6.            Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the OP with proper perspectives. According to him, in   this case OERC Code,1998 has not been followed while using the electricity. He also submitted as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  reported in AIR 2013 SC 2766 U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Others-Vrs- Anis Ahmad, the consumer complaint is not maintainable if there is bypassing of energy or tampering meter etc.  So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.      

7.                      Considered the submission  of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.       

8.                   We find that in the instant case the complainant’s house was searched by the OP and it was found that the complainant was using electricity by by-passing the meter. In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P.Power Corporation(Supra) it is settled in law that  if the OP is   found  by-passing of meter or tampering of meter or unauthorised use of energy  or by any other