Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/2

N.R.Vinodkumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst.Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.A.D.Benny

31 Oct 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2

N.R.Vinodkumar
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

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


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

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. N.R.Vinodkumar

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

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.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 the respondents vide consumer No.8480. He is issued with a notice dated 6.12.07 to pay Rs.2640/- as additional security deposit. The notice is illegal and without any basis and no details is seen furnished in the notice. Hence the complaint is filed.
 
            2. The counter is as follows: The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since the complainant is not a consumer. The bill dated 6.12.07 is issued to pay Rs.2640/- as per Section 47 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 15 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. Hence dismiss the complaint.
 
            3. The points for consideration are:
 
(1)   Is the complainant liable to pay the Ext. P1 bill amount?
(2)   Other reliefs and costs.
 
            4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1only. No other evidence adduced by both.
 
            5. Points-1 & 2: The complainant is the consumer of the respondents vide consumer No.8480. He is issued with Ext. P1 notice to pay Rs.2640/- as additional security deposit. The complainant states that the Ext. P1 notice is illegal and this complaint is filed. The complainant has questioned the Ext. P1 notice. According to him, it is illegal and without any basis. No details have also been mentioned in the disputed bill. The respondents have stated that the Ext. P1 notice is issued as per Section 47 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 15 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. As per these sections the respondents can collect an amount equal to three months electricity charges as security deposit. Hence Ext. P1 notice is legally valid. More over the statutory requirement of 30 days time is also allowed to remit the bill amount. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the Ext. P1 bill amount.
 
            7. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. The complainant is directed to pay the Ext. P1 bill amount by two consecutive monthly instalments and the first instalment shall pay on or before 15.12.2009.
 

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of November 2009.




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