ORDER : Dr. S. Mohanty, Member 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by learned District Forum, Kendrapara in C D. Case No. 140 of 2004. 2. Appellants representing Electricity Distribution Company, CESCO were O.Ps. whereas respondent was complainant before the District Forum. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant being a domestic consumer under O.Ps. with consumer No. ADD00046755, availed power, supply with load factor of 1.5 K.W. Complainant challenging the bill dated 23.4.2004 amounting to Rs. 23,407.30p filed a case before learned District Forum for revision of bill and restoration of power supply along with compensation of Rs. 70,000/-. 4. Upon notice, O.Ps. appeared through their counsel and filed written version jointly. Denying the allegations made by complainant O.Ps. challenged on maintainability as well as on limitation It was contended that bills were prepared as per the norms of OERC Code till the date of installation of meter on August 2002. Complainant was a habitual defaulter as a result arrear dues from April 1998 till July 2001 accumulated to an amount of Rs. 22,981.43p. It was further contended that in the event of breakdown of transformer in complainant's village, consumers were asked to pay 50% of arrear dues for availing power supply from a new transformer. As complainant failed to pay the same, power supply was not restored to his premises. Power supply to his premises was restored on 10.6.2005 as per the order of Hon'ble State Commission passed in C.D. Revision No. 69 of 2004 on payment of Rs. 5,000/- towards arrear and Rs. 50/- towards reconnection charges. There is no deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. and hence prayed for dismissal of the case. 5. Taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case learned District Forum ordered as follows: "That, the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest against the Opposite Parties with cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are directed to revive the electric bill with regard to the consumer number of the complainant covering 'No meter' period from April, 1998 to July, 2002 and also the meter 'OK' period from August, 2004 to September, 2005 basing on average consumption of 67 units per month. 500/- to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are directed to revive the electric bill with regard to the consumer number of the complainant covering 'No meter' period from April, 1998 to July, 2002 and also the meter 'OK' period from August, 2004 to September, 2005 basing on average consumption of 67 units per month. The revised bill prepared by the Opposite Parties deducting the amount already paid be sent to the complainant within two months from the date of the order. The complainant is also directed to pay the revised electricity bill amount within three months from the date of receipt of revised bill." 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order O.Ps. filed the present appeal on the ground that the order of learned District Forum is bad in law and is liable to set aside as it is contrary to the provisions of Orissa Electricity Regulation Code and Electricity Act. 7. We heard Mr. S.C. Panda, learned counsel for appellants. In spite of notice none appeared on behalf of respondent. 8. We perused the impugned order as well as the materials available in District Forum record. We also went through the appeal memo. 9. Admittedly, respondent is a domestic consumer under the appellants Company who availed power supply with load factor of 1.5 K.W. It was alleged that bills issued to him was not correct and requested for correction of bills. 10. On perusal of payment statement it has come to light that there has been arrear outstanding to be paid by consumer. It is also seen that there was no meter from May 1998 to May 2002. The bills were assessed on average consumption basis. After installation of meter bills were prepared on the basis of actual consumption. Unfortunately there was a fire accident due to short circuit in his dwelling house on 21.5.2004. As a result there was no power supply. Thereafter, due to breakdown of transformer in respondent's village power supply could not be restored. Appellants demanded to deposit 50% of arrear dues for installation of new transformer from the consumers of his village. Respondent did not pay the same rather filed a consumer dispute case before the District Forum. It is further observed that respondent's power supply was restored as per the direction of this Commission on 10.6.2005. The payment statement shows that after installation of meter bills were issued on actual consumption basis. Respondent did not pay the same rather filed a consumer dispute case before the District Forum. It is further observed that respondent's power supply was restored as per the direction of this Commission on 10.6.2005. The payment statement shows that after installation of meter bills were issued on actual consumption basis. Due to non payment of arrear dues since long by respondent there was an arrear amount remained outstanding to be paid. The bill assessment and payment statement of appellants further reveal that during breakdown of transformer when there was no power supply, electricity bills were raised which is unjust and improper. 11. From the above it is evident that power supply has been restored. With regard to the disputed bill dated 23.4.2004 it is seen, that the bill has been prepared on the basis of actual consumption as per the reading reflecting on the meter. Due to non payment of arrear dues for a longer period resulting in higher amount is not the fault of the appellants. It is rather the fault of the respondent in not paying the dues in time. It is further observed that bills issued during the period of breakdown of transformer when there was no power supply, respondent should not have been charged for the said period. 12. In view of the above observation, we are of the opinion that the demand of electric charges by the appellants for the period from 21.5.2004 till power is restored is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Apart from this, non-revision of the bill in spite of request of the complainant is also deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. So the finding of the learned District Forum cannot be interfered in this regard. However, the order of the learned District Forum to revise the electric bill for no meter period and for 'OK' period on average consumption of 67 unit per month is not correct as there is no-reason ascribed by the learned District Forum to raise this conclusion. 13. However, the order of the learned District Forum to revise the electric bill for no meter period and for 'OK' period on average consumption of 67 unit per month is not correct as there is no-reason ascribed by the learned District Forum to raise this conclusion. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order is modified to the extent by directing the appellants to revise the bills by deducting the charges made for the period when the house of the complainant gutted by fire till power is restored to the house on the order of this Commission in CD Revision No. 69 of 2004. Such order should be complied within a period of 30 days from today. The complainant is also directed to make payment of the revise bill immediately after demand is made. Free copy of this order be supplied to both the parties. DFR be sent back forthwith.