Learned counsel for the appellant is present.

2.     None appears for the respondent. The service of summon against the respondent is held sufficient.

3.      Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

  4.    The appellant was the OP whereas the respondent was the complainant before the learned District Forum. Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.     

  5.    Learned counsel for the appellant submitted  that the complainant alleged that he is a consumer under the OP and he was paying the electricity dues regularly. The complainant alleged inter-alia that on 29.03.2019 OP No.2  sent a bill of Rs.660/- to complainant  and complainant alleged that he had protested about payment but due to non-payment the power supply was disconnected. Thereafter the complainant allegedly persue the OP but could not get power supply due to inaction of OP allegedly the complaint was filed.

   6.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the OP could not appear due to miscommunication between their franchise and licensee. In fact there was no disconnection of power supply and case has been filed falsely.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without understanding the facts and law learned District Forum allowed the complaint.

8.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by passing ex-parte order against the OP without waiting for appearance of the OP. On the otherhand learned counsel  for the appellant submitted that there are lot of mistake in the impugned order and accordingly it should be set-aside.

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

  10.     No doubt an ex-parte order has been passed in this case for the reason that there is some miscommunication between the franchise and licensee and thus the present appellant could not get chance to put up his facts. Had there been opportunity of being heard to the present appellant, the matter would be  considered in closure parameter. 

11.     In view of the aforesaid analysis this Commission is of the view  that the OP should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside and it is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the learned District Commission and heard afresh and to adduce evidence by both the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission  on 17.02.2021 and take further instruction.

              Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective  parties.                           

                DFR be sent back forthwith.