ORDER Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order dated 21.4.2003 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal allowing appeal against the order dated 20.6.2000 of a District Forum whereby respondent/opposite party-Board was directed to provide electric connection to petitioner/complainant within three months on condition of his completing requisite formalities and also to pay Rs. 3,000 as cost. In case the order was not complied within the said period, the respondent was to pay Rs. 25 per day till compliance thereof. 2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner is the owner of agricultural land in Survey No. 1496 of Village Mewara Manpur, Distt. Sheopur. He made application to the respondent-Board for granting electric connection for irrigating the said land. On receipt of demand notice from respondent, the petitioner deposited fee for electric connection. On inspection of site by the officials of Sub-division of respondent on 22.5.2000, it was found that four poles were already standing there and fifth pole was to be installed in addition to providing separate DP of 25. On not providing electric connection, the petitioner filed complaint claiming damage/loss of crop of Rs. 50,000 and compensation towards mental agony etc. Respondent contested the complaint by filing written version. Filing of application for grant of 5 HP electric connection by the petitioner was not disputed. It was, however, denied that petitioner is a consumer. It was alleged that there was no time limit for supply of electric connection. The amount of work yet to be completed out of the work-order can be stated only by the Divisional Engineer of O & M Branch, who has not been impleaded as a party. It was denied that petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed. 3. Contention advanced by Mr. S.M. Tripathi for petitioner was that as is manifest from the order of State Commission the petitioner was not provided electric connection as the Rural Electrification Scheme which was subsidised by the Central Government had ended. However, this was not the stand taken by respondent-Board in the written version filed before the District Forum. 3. Contention advanced by Mr. S.M. Tripathi for petitioner was that as is manifest from the order of State Commission the petitioner was not provided electric connection as the Rural Electrification Scheme which was subsidised by the Central Government had ended. However, this was not the stand taken by respondent-Board in the written version filed before the District Forum. Attention was also invited to the letter dated 21.6.2000 (copy at page 26) sent by the respondent to the petitioner wherein it was mentioned that work of expansion of electricity line was complete and electricity was available for being given to the petitioner, petitioner after installation of motor and having it tested may obtain connection within three months. According to Mr. Tripathi, this letter could not have been sent if the scheme had ended. Having perused the written version there seems to be considerable merit in the said contention of Mr. Tripathi that it was not the case of respondent that the scheme had ended. It appears that the said letter issued by respondent-Board after the passing of District Forum’s order, was not before the State Commission at the time in order under challenge was passed. Petitioner seems to have not filed any documentary proof in regard to his having purchased the motor and having submitted the inspection report to respondent-Board pursuant to the above letter. In that backdrop, taking note of the fact that in said scheme has ended the order which can be passed is for awarding compensation which, in the facts and circumstance of case, is quantified at Rs. 20,000. Order of State Commission, thus, stands modified to that extent. Revision stands disposed of. R.P. disposed of.