Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The unfolded story of the case of complainant is that the complainant being the daughter-[in-law of consumer Gini Devi alleged inter alia that after death of her mother-in-law, the complainant has been using the service connection as per  their family arrangement and paying the dues regularly to the OPs.

4.      Complainant further alleged that till September, 2005, they received the bill for Rs.4,160.25 but due to financial crunch, they sent Rs.1,000/- only through cheque on 30.9.2005. It is stated that the cheque was bounced and they got information from the OPs about such fact on 29.10.2005. But suddenly on 28.10.2005 the OPs disconnected power supply. Complaint asked the OPs as to why the power has been disconnected and then she came to know that the cheque has been bounced. So the complainant immediately deposited amount of Rs.1,300/- and power was restored on the same day. It is alleged by the complainant that without any notice of any bounce of cheque, the disconnection of power supply is a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and for that she has to suffer heavy mental agony and as such filed the complaint case against the OPs.

5.      OPs filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer for mother-in-law. It is also averred that the complainant was in arrear in payment of the dues. When the complainant came to know about such fact, she had filed a cheque for Rs.1,000/- which was bounced and this fact was also informed by the OPs to the complainant on 27.10.2005. As per Regulation 93(6) of OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004, they have disconnected power supply on 28.10.2005. So there is no any deficiency of service on their part.

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

                                       “xxx  xxx  xxx

We therefore direct the OPs for payment of compensation of Rs.2,500/- along with a litigation expenses of Rs.500/- to the complainant within a span of one month after receipt of copy of this order.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously argued that the complainant being not a consumer is not entitled to file the consumer complaint. That apart, he submitted that when the complainant was in arrear, she was issued the bill for payment and the complainant has issued a cheque of Rs.1,000/-, it was bounced and immediately on 27.10.2005 the complainant was informed. But these facts have not been appreciated by the learned District Forum for the reasons best known to it. He further submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the provision of OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply)