Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

2.           Captioned appeal  is 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 consumer under opposite party no.1  and was paying the electricity bills regularly to the opposite parties. It is alleged that till the month of October, 2015 the opposite parties were supplying regular electricity bills and the complainant was also paying the said bills regularly .But sometime thereafter, the opposite parties stopped supplying regular monthly bills. The   complainant on the other hand paid Rs. 650/- on 26.11.2015, Rs. 670/- on 25.12.2015, Rs. 2000/- on 17.3.2016, Rs. 2000/- on 19.4.2016 and Rs. 3000/- on 3.6.3016. The opposite parties assured the complainant to adjust the amounts paid by the complainant during the period for non-supply of electricity bills. Thereafter, the complainant again went on paying bills i.e. Rs. 631/- on 30.8.2016, Rs. 600/- on 21.9.2016 and Rs. 500/- on 21.10.2016. But all on a sudden the complainant received one letter from the opposite party on 26.12.2016 stating therein that the complainant has to pay Rs. 89,042/- against the electricity dues till September, 2016 within seven days failing which electricity supply will be disconnected.

4.          The opposite party filed  written version stating that the complainant was paying bills up to October, 2015 and has also paid the arrear amount of Rs. 1441.27 and also admitted the receipts of electricity bill amounts of Rs. 631/- on 23.8.2016, Rs. 600/- on 21.9.2016 and Rs. 500/- on 21.10.2016 but denied to have issued any notice to the complainant. The opposite parties submitted that the bills are generated on implementation of meter photo billing. The opposite parties have cited some dues such as for the month of June, 2016 Rs. 94,922.98, for July,2016 Rs. 631.20, for August, 2016 Rs. 596.22, for September, 2016 Rs. 500.13 and for October, 2016 Rs. 653.01. Thus, there is no deficiency on the party of the opposite parties.

5.          After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned District Forum have passed the following order:-

  “ The O.Ps are hereby directed to waive out the arrear/outstanding dues amount of Rs. 89,042/- (Rupees Eighty nine thousand forty two) only as per letter no. 749(2)  dated 13.12.2016 issued to the complainant and pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only towards mental agony and litigation costs within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order. The O.Ps are further directed to issue regular monthly electricity bills to the complainant.

   Accordingly the case is disposed of.”

6.          Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by passing the impugned order which is not just and proper. According to him, the existing meter reading system was changed by virtue of amendment with photo billing and accordingly payment has been received. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all those facts. He further submitted that the deposit of entire money of 89,042/- is based on documents. Since the learned District Forum did not apply judicial mind while passing the impugned order, the same should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.          Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since he has paid all the bills, there is no arrear against him. He also submitted that the letter dated 26.12.2016 as produced by the learned counsel for the appellant is false and fabricated one as the same has not been received by the respondent.

8.          Considered the submissions, perused the impugned order and the DFR.

9.          It is admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer under opposite parties. It is well settled principle that complainant has to prove the  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

10.        In this case, the only dispute arise as to whether on 26.12.2016 the complainant has received any bill from the opposite party showing adjustment of the bills. In response to the said bill, the complainant has submitted one application to the opposite party who received the same but no other material is available to show that it is not received by the appellant.

11.        On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is an endorsement in their letter that the wife of the complainant has received the letter. This letter was not  produced before the learned District Forum. It is produced before us for the first time. We are concerned only with the documents filed before the learned District Forum. As such, we are of the view that in response to the letter dated 26.12.2016 of the complainant, no reply has been sent by the appellant.

12.        We are of the view that there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. As such, it is confirmed.

13.        The appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.