Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/114

P.M.Ibrahimkutty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst.Engineer,KSEB - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.A.D.Benny

31 Oct 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/114

P.M.Ibrahimkutty
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Asst.Engineer,KSEB
Kerala State Elecricity Board
...........Respondent(s)


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

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. P.M.Ibrahimkutty

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Asst.Engineer,KSEB 2. Kerala State Elecricity Board

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.6715. He is running the establishment as means of livelihood as part of self employment. He has been paying the electricity bills regularly. But he was issued with a notice to pay Rs.4890/- as additional security deposit. This notice is illegal and is without any basis. It is also threatened that the electricity supply will be disconnected if the bill amount is not paid. Hence the complaint.
 
            2. The counter is as follows: The disputed notice to pay Rs.4890/- as additional cash deposit is issued as per Section 47 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 15 of Electricity Supply Code. As per these Sections an amount equivalent to three months electricity charges is to be paid as security deposit. On the basis of the electricity consumed by the complainant for the last six months he has to pay Rs.4940/- as security deposit. But his existing deposit is only Rs.50/-. So the disputed notice is issued asking him to pay the balance amount. The notice is legally valid. Hence dismiss the complaint.
 
 
            3. The points for consideration are:
(1)   Is the complainant liable to pay the bill amount?
(2)   Is there any deficiency in service?
(3)   Other reliefs and costs.
 
            4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 only. No other evidence adduced by both.
 
            5. Points-1 to 3: The complainant’s case is that he has been paying the electricity charges regularly. But he was issued with Ext. P1 bill as additional cash deposit. According to him it is illegal and he is not liable to pay it. The counter is that the Ext. P1 bill is issued on the basis of Section 47 of Indian Electricity Act and Section 13 of Electricity Supply Code. As per these Sections a consumer is bound to pay an amount equal to three months electricity charges as security deposit. On calculating the average six months electricity charges prior to the notice the complainant has to pay Rs.4940/- as security deposit and the existing cash deposit of the complainant is only Rs.50/-. So Ext. P1 notice is issued to pay Rs.4840/- being the additional security deposit and complainant is liable to pay it. It is seen that the Ext. P1 notice is legally based. More over the complainant has given 30 days time to pay the bill. So the complainant is liable to pay the bill.
            6. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. The complainant is directed to pay the amount stated in Ext. P1 notice by two equal monthly instalments and the first instalment shall pay on or before 10.12.09.
 

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




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