PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1776 of 2003 – Radhey Shyam Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVN by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was having two electricity connection bearing account No.NR-13-766 of single phase for domestic purposes and another bearing A/c No.NR-3/2 of three phase for non-domestic purposes. On 24.6.2001 the shop as well as residential portion of the complainant got damaged by the Administration due to which the meter of the complainant got broken and his electricity supply was disturbed. On 26.6.2001 the opposite party installed a new electronic meter at the premises of complainant but the same became dead on 2.7.2001 and the complainant was without supply of electricity. The complainant made several requests to the opposite party to change the meter and to make the electricity supply regular but of no avail. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 19.4.2002 the officials of the opposite party removed the meter and the cable without any notice or without any reason with the help of police forcibly and since then the complainant is without electricity. The meter in respect of connection No.NR3/2 installed at the shop of the complainant for non-domestic purposes was also running fast for which the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party and after receiving the report from the field staff the opposite party asked the complainant to deposit Rs.250/- to install check meter and as such the complainant deposited the same on 28.11.2000. The check/parallel meter was installed on 1.12.2000. The complainant further submitted that the meter installed at his premises was running 52% fast than the parallel/check meter. The complainant asked the opposite party to correct the consumption bills or to charge the same on average basis on the basis of previous consumption but the opposite party did not pay any heed. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum. OP contested the complaint and submitted that complainant was having two electricity connections i.e. bearing A/c No.NR13/766 and No.NR3/2. It was denied that connection No.NR13/766 was domestic connection. As per the report of the meter reader the said connection was found being used for Non domestic purposes in the shop of the complainant. Another account No.NR3/2 installed in the name of complainant was also for non-domestic purposes. The complainant was not making payment of the electricity bills of both the connections regularly. An amount of Rs.15641/- was outstanding against A/c No.NR13/766 on 4/2000 and an amount of Rs.85727/- was outstanding against A/c No.NR3/2 as on 4/2002. It was further pleaded that on the instructions of the Local Administration the electricity connections of the shops and residential houses of the owners of Mandi Area including that of complainant were disconnected on 24.6.2001 and the connection No.NR13/766 was restored by installing a new meter on 26.6.2001 as the complainant did not give the old meter which was removed at the time of removal of unauthorized encroachment in the said area. It was further alleged that the complainant did not allow the meter reader to enter into his premises to take the reading and as such the opposite party had no other alternate except to issue the bills to the above account on average basis from 12/2001 and as such an amount of Rs.15641/- was outstanding against A/c No.NR13/766 as on 4/02 and notice was also issued to the complainant for the payment of said amount vide memo No.3768 dated 10.12.2001 but the complainant did not make the payment of the outstanding dues and as such the electricity supply of the complainant bearing A/c No.NR13/766 was disconnected on 19.4.2002. It was denied that the meter of A/c No.NR3/2 was running fast. It was further pleaded that a check meter was installed in A/c No.NR3/2 on 1.12.2000. The complainant was asked to produce clearance certificate but he failed to do so. Both the meter of the complainant were required to be sent to M& P Lab for checking and report but the complainant did not allow the officials of the opposite party to enter at his premises. It was further denied that the mater installed at the premises of the complainant was found running 52% fast than that of check meter. Denying any kind of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice it was prayed that complaint merited dismissal. District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was also dismissed by the learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the fact that the meter of the petitioner was running fast than the check meter, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Learned District Forum observed that as per directions of OP, complainant should have deposited meters in his possession and as complainant himself not produced clearance certificate in time, dismissed complaint. Learned State Commission while dismissing appeal, observed as under: “Admittedly under the instruction of the Civil Administration the encroachments in the area were removed and due to which the meter installed at the premises of complainant were got damaged. It is the complainant who did not comply with the directions of the Nigam despite of the fact that the officials of the Nigam requested the complainant to hand over the meter in question but the complainant neither handover the meter in question to the officials of the Nigam nor allow the officials of the Nigam to enter at his premises and as such the opposite parties have no other option, except to issue the bills to the above account on average basis. More so the complainant was asked to produce the clearance certificate but he failed to produce the same. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant has failed to produce any type of evidence to prove his case whereas the opposite party has every right to recover the arrears of electricity bill consumed by the complainant. No case for deficiency of service or unfair trade practice is made out. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place on record any evidence to substantiate his arguments that his meter was running fast than the check meter. In the light of the concurrent finding of Fora below, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. | 
