Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/15

B.K.Ashraf Thangal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst.Engineer KSEB - Opp.Party(s)

A.D.Benny

28 Dec 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/15

B.K.Ashraf Thangal
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Asst.Engineer KSEB
Senior Superintendent
KSEB
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. B.K.Ashraf Thangal

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Asst.Engineer KSEB 2. Senior Superintendent 3. KSEB

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. A.D.Benny

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
The complainant’s case is as follows:
            The complainant is a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondents vide consumer No.1221/OYR. The respondents issued a notice dated 7/12/06 demanding Rs.2000/- as additional cash deposit. The notice is illegal as it is not having any basis. The respondents through the notice informed that they will disconnect the supply if the amount is not paid. The respondents have no right to demand such an amount and to disconnect the supply. Hence the complaint.
            2. Counter of respondents is that:
The bill dated 7/12/06 was issued to the complainant requesting to pay additional security amount of Rs.2000/- as per existing law. This is according to Section 47 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 and Clause 15 of the Terms and conditions of Supply Act, 2005. The complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with an intention to evade the payment. The complaint is not maintainable. The Board has every right to collect 3 months electricity charge as security deposit as per above provisions. Hence dismiss the complaint.
 
 
            3. The points for consideration are:
1) Is there any deficiency in service ?
2) If so relief and cost?
 
            4. The complainant has produced one document and it is marked as Exhibit P1 and submitted no oral evidence. The respondents produced one document and is marked as Exhibit R1 and submitted no oral evidence.
 
5. Points: The complainant filed this complaint to cancel the notice issued by the respondents. The complainant is a consumer of the respondents having consumer No.1221/OYR. The dispute arises when he obtained a notice dated 7/12/06 issued by the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as Additional Security Deposit.   The complainant challenges this notice as illegal. In the counter the respondents have specifically mentioned   that there is no illegality in the notice issued. According to Section 47 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 and Clause 15 of the Terms and conditions of Supply Act, 2005 the Board has every right to collect 3 months electricity charge as security deposit.    So as per the above provisions the respondents demanded Rs.2,000/- as Additional cash deposit. Exhibit P1 shows that the demand notice issued was dated 7/12/2006 and the amount to be paid before 10/1/07. So the complainant had given one-month duration to remit the amount. So we cannot say any deficiency in service of the respondents.
 
            8. In the result the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is directed to remit the amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
            Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 28th day of December 2009. 



......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S