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.   Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant is a consumer’ under the OPs. Complainant alleged inter ala that the OPs charged Rs.3,078/- on load factor basis without showing any meter reading for the month of March and April, 2003 which the complainant has paid. The complainant has further alleged that in the month of May and June, 2003 charged Rs.3,180/- for 288 units and like this continued to charge on load factor basis. The complainant has brought to the notice of OPs that the load factor basis unit being excess should be revised by taking the meter reading showing actual consumption. The OPs did not pay attention to it. So he filed the complaint.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that a new meter has already been installed on 25.11.2002 but the complainant did not give access to meter reading, for that the bill was issued on load factor basis. However, they have already revised the bill up to June, 2004 and as such the complainant is allowed to pay Rs.769.25 only. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

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

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

For the above reasons the Forum came to conclusion that there is deficiency of service by the OPs. Thereof, the Forum orders directing the OPs to adjust the excess amount paid by complainant till 6/04 in the coming forth bill, inspect the premises of the complainant and rectify the load, issue correct bill according to the reading, pay a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the case to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  the learned District Forum has committed error in law  while coming to conclusion about deficiency of service on the part of the OPs although the written version shows that there is already revision of bill by asking the complainant to pay Rs.769.25. Of course, the bill was  revised during pendency of the case before the learned District Forum.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned District Forum has not applied its judicial mind to the fact that the meter reading could not be done due to the fault of the complainant. Learned District Forum has erred in law by directing the OPs to adjust excess amount paid by the complainant till 30.6.2004 by not following the fact narrated in the written version that they have already revised the bill. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

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

10.    It is admitted fact that the complainant is a ‘consumer’ under the