ORDER Justice K.S. Gupta, Member—This revision is directed against the order dated 10.5.01 of Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dismissing appeal against the order dated 15.11.90 of a District Forum whereby petitioner Board was directed to restore electricity connection of the respondent without any charges, pay the amounts of Rs. 3,805 and Rs. 44,000 with interest @ 15% p.a. and Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony to the respondent. 2. In short the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Respondent/complainant was sanctioned 80 HP connection for running cane crusher in village Dharampur, Tehsil Bisoli, District Budaun by U.P. State Electricity Board Opposite Party whereof U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., petitioner is the successor. During routine checking on 28.11.90, officials of the Department could not locate the pressure of electric meter. On their suggestion the respondent agreed to pay 1/3 more on the basis of three bills earlier paid by him. It was alleged that Department fixed a check meter on the old defective meter. Since this check meter gave wrong reading the respondent made a complaint and on the direction of Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bareily, he deposited fee for installation of another check meter. Another check meter was installed at the site. This check meter too was defective. All the three meters continued to operate from the same place and none was made final for the purpose of raising bills. Electricity connection was disconnected on 24.8.91 for no fault of the respondent. It was stated that from the report dated 27.11.93 of the Assistant Engineer (meters) Electric Lab, Budaun, it is clear that check meters being defective, no assessment was possible on the basis of reading recorded by them. It was further alleged that without making any of the meters final an bill of Rs. 66,699 was sent to the respondent who under protest deposited Rs. 5,000 on 15.3.91 and Rs. 70,000 on 31.3.91, totalling Rs. 75,000 with the electricity department. No final bill was sent to the respondent for the period 28.11.90 to 31.1.94. Despite there being no outstanding payment the department prepared bill for an amount of Rs. 47,858.15. Recovery certificate for realization of this amount by attachment of the land of the respondent was send to the Tehsildar. On 30.12.93, amount of Rs. 47,858.15 was deposited by the respondent vide receipt Nos. 198690 and 198691. Despite there being no outstanding payment the department prepared bill for an amount of Rs. 47,858.15. Recovery certificate for realization of this amount by attachment of the land of the respondent was send to the Tehsildar. On 30.12.93, amount of Rs. 47,858.15 was deposited by the respondent vide receipt Nos. 198690 and 198691. Department also cancelled the agreement. It was also stated that on 22.2.94, another bill stated to be final bill for Rs. 14,066.79 was raised. Aggrieved by the action of the Department the respondent filed complaint seeking restoration of electricity connection, refund of Rs. 47, 858.15 and payment of compensation etc. Complaint was contested by the petitioner by filing written version. It was not disputed that the respondent was given 80 HP for running cane crusher in village Dharampur, Rota and connection was disconnected on 24.8.91 due to non-payment of outstanding bills. However, it was alleged that on 28.11.90, the Assistant Engineer (meter) and Sub-Divisional Officer 1, Budaun had visited the premises of the respondent for checking meters and they found that power meter had been recording 2 x 3 consumed units. Check meter was, therefore, installed. While taking reading on 2.1.91 it was found that reading of consumption of electricity in the old meter was less than the reading recorded in the check meter. Check meter load was also found to be 94.93 instead of 80 HP. Letter No. 491 dated 31.1.91 written to the respondent informing that he had been consuming more electricity than sanctioned, was not replied by the respondent. Through a letter the respondent informed the petitioner that check meter was not recording correct reading. He deposited Rs. 600 as test fee for installation of another check meter. Another check meter was installed near the old meter. Bill of Rs. 66,699.31 was issued as per reading recorded by first check meter for the period 28.11.90 to 22.2.91. It was admitted that amounts of Rs. 70,000 on 15.3.91 and Rs. 5,000 on 31.3.91 were deposited by the respondent. Respondent stopped paying electricity bills from 1.3.91 and an amount of Rs. 23,743.88 was outstanding against the respondent which he failed to deposit despite letter No. 4005 dated 9.8.91 sent by registered post. Letter No. 4857 dated 26.5.92 sent by registered post intimating that check meter would be made final was returned back by the respondent. Respondent did not co-operate to make the check meters final. 23,743.88 was outstanding against the respondent which he failed to deposit despite letter No. 4005 dated 9.8.91 sent by registered post. Letter No. 4857 dated 26.5.92 sent by registered post intimating that check meter would be made final was returned back by the respondent. Respondent did not co-operate to make the check meters final. It was stated that RC for an amount of Rs. 43,500 was issued as finalization of the meter could not be made. Issuance of bill No. 887 dated 19.2.94 for Rs. 14,066.79 was admitted. Receipt of amount of Rs. 43,500.36 pursuant to R.C. was also admitted. It was alleged that respondent is entitled to receive amount of Rs. 29,433.60 which was deposited in excess. Refund of security deposit can be made only on production of security deposit receipt. It was denied that respondent is entitled to the claimed. 3. At the outset, submission advanced by Shri Anshej Dhingra for the respondent in regard to revision having been filed beyond limitation needs to be examined. In R.P. Nos. 804, 1884 to 1881 of 2001—Kerala Consumer Protection Centre v. District Executive Officer, decided on 19.11.2001 by this Commission it was held that though Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not provide for any limitation for revision, the revision should ordinarily be filed within 90 days of the passing of impugned order. Undisputedly, the State Commission passed the order under challenge on 10.5.01 while the present revision was filed on 6.5.2002. Thus, there was delay of about 9 months in filing revision for condoning whereof even an application was not filed by the petitioner. Revision, thus, deserves to be dismissed as being barred by limitation. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, it was pointed out by Shri Vinay Garg for petitioner that the complaint having been filed beyond two years of disconnection of electricity connection on 24.8.1991 was barred by limitation and the respondent had not challenged the bills and the order for payment of Rs. 44,000 and Rs. 3,805, therefore, could not have been made by the fora below. Respondent was made to pay these amounts to the Tehsildar pursuant to Recovery certificate(s) issued by the petitioner. On limitation, our attention was drawn to the order dated 28.11.2002. Pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2006, respondent has filed copy of check meter report dated 27.11.93. 44,000 and Rs. 3,805, therefore, could not have been made by the fora below. Respondent was made to pay these amounts to the Tehsildar pursuant to Recovery certificate(s) issued by the petitioner. On limitation, our attention was drawn to the order dated 28.11.2002. Pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2006, respondent has filed copy of check meter report dated 27.11.93. Old meter and two check meters were removed from the premises of the respondent on 6.11.1993. Said report after noticing the conditions of three meters reads thus: 1. All the seals, paper seals and lock found intact (O.K.) 2. One No. pressure coil of old meter found burnt. 3. One No. pressure coil of check meter No.1 found burnt. 4. All three meters are repairable. 5. Since the first check meter is also found defective (one pressure coil burnt) and connection was disconnected long back, therefore, no result of check meters can be derived. The permanent disconnection bill may be finalized as per Board’s Rules. 5. To be noted that by way of relief No.1 in the complaint the respondent sought direction for restoration of supply without any disconnection charges. By way of relief No. 3 refund of the amounts recovered through Tehsildar along with interest @ 15% p.a. was claimed. Order dated 14.1.2003 notices the statement of the respondent that he did not want the electricity connection now. In view of this statement, part of the order passed by District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission in regard to restoration of electric connection without any charges has been rendered infructuous. Claim for refunds of the amounts recovered through Tehsildar on 30.12.93 was well within limitation on the date the complaint was filed. In the said order dated 28.11.2002 observation in regard to complaint being barred by time seems to have been made with reference to restoration of electric supply which has no relevance as regards refund of the amounts realized through Tehsildar and the compensation. Objection as to the complaint being barred by limitation with regard to refund of the amounts recovered through Tehsildar and compensation is, therefore, repelled being without any merit. 6. Yet another submission advanced by Shri Garg is that first check meter was in order is belied by the said report dated 27.11.93. Objection as to the complaint being barred by limitation with regard to refund of the amounts recovered through Tehsildar and compensation is, therefore, repelled being without any merit. 6. Yet another submission advanced by Shri Garg is that first check meter was in order is belied by the said report dated 27.11.93. Since the old meter and two check meters were defective the reading recorded in any of these meters could not be validly made the basis for issuing Recovery certificate(s) pursuant to which the respondent was compelled to pay two amounts of Rs. 44,000 and Rs. 3,805. Recoveries of these amounts could be validly assailed by the respondent without challenging the bills. Thus, on merit too the petitioner has no case. 7. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed on both the grounds with cost of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. Revision dismissed. ******