This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Mohinder Kaur, challenging the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission) dated 25.10.2016 passed in First Appeal No.612 of 2016. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had an electricity connection from the opposite party for a residential unit. Since the meter was running fast for many years, the same was checked by the officials of the opposite party on 9th June, 2014. After checking, the meter was found defective and the same was replaced. It is alleged that after 8 months, the complainant requested opposite parties to overhaul the account on the basis of the consumption pattern recorded by the new meter. The opposite parties did not do the needful inspite of several requests from the petitioner. Consequently a consumer complaint was filed by the petitioner before the District Forum which was contested by the opposite parties on the ground that the meter was tested in M and T Lab of the opposite parties and it was found to be about 40.4 percent slow. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 10.05.2016 as under:- “While, thus, allowing the complaint on a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs vis-à-vis the complainant, we would order that:- a) The OPs shall overhaul the account of the complainant for the indicated six months duration.The complainant shall be entitled to the benefit of the outcome of the exercise aforementioned. b) The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service as also mental harassment caused to her by the non-affording of an opportunity to her to be present at the time of testing of the meter. c) The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation. 9. The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of costs, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.” 3. Opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission which was allowed by the State Commission vide its order dated 25.10.2016 and the order of the District Forum was set aside. 4. Hence the present revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the meter was running fast and therefore it was requested to be sent to the test lab for checking. It was requested that she should be intimated the date of checking and she would like to be present during testing. Learned counsel stated that the request was made as per the instruction No.4.10.1 IV of State Manual of the opposite parties. Opposite parties did not inform the petitioner and got the meter tested from M and T Lab of the opposite parties. Thus, this was a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As the opposite parties have not associated the petitioner in testing of the meter, the report of the testing lab cannot be accepted. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent opposite parties stated that the issue that the complainant was not associated with the testing of the meter was not raised before the State Commission and therefore the same cannot be raised in the revision petition. Moreover, testing has been done in M & T lab of the opposite parties and the same cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that the complainant was not associated with testing. The meter has been found to be 40.4 percent slow. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and have examined the record. I agree with the assertion of the learned counsel for the respondents that the test report cannot be disbelieved on the ground that the complainant was not associated with the testing of the meter. The meter of the complainant was changed on 9th June, 2014. This Commission vide its order dated 6th April 2018 asked the petitioner to place monthly bills from January, 2014 to June, 2015 to check whether units consumed are more or less from the units consumed earlier before the change of the meter. The bills filed by the petitioner are not readable, however, from some of the bills that are readable, it is brought out that the units consumed as shown in the new meter are more than the units consumed as shown by the earlier meter. This also supports the contention of the respondents that the old meter was defective and was running slow. 9. On the basis of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition No.761 of 2017 and the same is dismissed. | 
