Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 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 OP. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant was paying the bill regularly but in the bill dated 13.3.2003 the OP charged transaction of 7464 units for the month of February, 2003. Complainant has challenged the same. However, complainant paid Rs.3,000/- on 29.9.2003 and alleged about the erroneous bill and filed the complaint.

4.      OP appeared and filed written version stating that they have already revised the bill on 15.3.2002 on the basis of meter reading but the complainant has paid Rs.3,000/-  in the month of September, 2003 and a new tested meter has already been installed. The allegations made by the complainant are totally false. So, there is no any deficiency in service on their part.

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

                              “xxx   xxx   xxx

i) OP is directed to revise the bills by giving exemption from payment of meter rent of Rs.100/- per month to the complainant from 5/02 to 2/04 amounting to Rs.2200/- as the meter was installed at the cost of the complainant.

ii) The OP is directed to revise the bill dated 13.3.03 for the month of 2/03 by taking average meter reading of consecutive three months from 2/04 to 5/04 as is found in the ledger account of the complainant.

iii) The OP is directed not to charge any dues even minimum fixed charges for the period from 4/02 to 10/02 due to burning of transformer as the complainant did not get service of consumption as the complainant did not get service of consumption of energy of electricity.

iv) OP is directed to pay Rs.1000/- for mental agony of the complainant as the complainant is a senior citizen/older person.

v) OP is directed to pay Rs.500/- towards expenses of proceeding to the complainant.

The amount of cost and compensation shall be adjusted in the revision of bills on the arrears if any/future bills of the complainant including Rs.2200/-. The OP is to allow suitable instalments for payment of dues after revision of bills on the application of the complainant.

The compliance of the directions shall be within two months from the date of receipt of the order.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  the learned District Forum has not taken into consideration the revised bill dated 15.3.2003 and passed a wrong order. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

8.      It is admitted fact that the complainant was paying the bill regularly and he has raised objection on bill dated 13.3.2003. The learned District Forum has not considered the facts as has been alleged in the written version. Had  the learned District  taken the bill dated 15.3,2003 into consideration, it would not have