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 case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is a regular consumer under the OPs. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant received a bill from the OPs for the month of July, 2003 for Rs.22,655/- for  use of electric energy in his rice huller premises. Complainant alleged that he has paid such amount by instalments on different dates on 27.4.2005, 27.5.2005 and 3.9.2005. It is alleged inter alia by the complainant that in spite of payment of the bill by instalment basis, OPs have demanded further inflated bills on 7.9.2005. When the complainant contacted the OPs, he did not receive any reply. So complaint was filed showing deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that the complainant was using power supply to his rice huller but due to non-payment of the arrear amount, power supply was disconnected in the month of August, 2003 and it was restored in the month of May, 2005 after the complainant paid the arrears.  It is also alleged that the complainant was using power supply unauthorisedly during the disconnection period. When the action was taken for complainant was using electric energy beyond the contract load, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

5.      Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:-

                              “xxx   xxx   xxx

The opp.parties are directed not to demand electric dues/charges including fixed charges during the disconnection period from August, 2003 to April, 2005.

The complaint petition is allowed accordingly without costs.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him, the complainant was using electricity during disconnection period and same was very much available from the meter reading made later on. Thus, the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the fact that electricity was being used for such disconnection period by using the meter itself. He further submitted that due to excessive use of electricity as detected through meter during disconnection period bill was issued and the complainant has paid such arrear also by instalment basis. Learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering such fact and passed the impugned order which should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      The complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on part of the OPs.

9.      It is admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs by taking electric supply to his rice huller premises. It is not in dispute that in August, 2003, OPs