Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/1006

Jacob C John - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary,Thrissur Municipal Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.John Neelankavil,Adv.Seema P.P.

17 Apr 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/1006

Jacob C John
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Secretary,Thrissur Municipal Corporation
Asst.Secretary
...........Respondent(s)


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

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Jacob C John

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. The Secretary,Thrissur Municipal Corporation 2. Asst.Secretary

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.John Neelankavil,Adv.Seema P.P.

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 complaint filed to get back the amount paid as security deposit for availing temporary electrical connection. The case in brief is as follows:
The complainant had applied for a temporary 3 phase electrical connection for 10HP motor and 4500 watts light for one month. The respondent had granted temporary service connection for one month for building work. Accordingly the complainant had deposited Rs.4000/- as security amount. A receipt had issued in this regard. The complainant had completed the work within one month from the date of connection and temporary connection was disconnected and whole apparatus from the premises were removed. The property was sold and there after the complainant applied to refund the security amount after deducting the energy charges for one month. But the amount had not been refunded. The complainant issued a lawyer notice requesting to refund the amount deposited as security. But there was no reply or remedy. Hence the complaint.
 
            2. The respondents are called absent and set exparte.
 
            3. In order to prove the case the complainant has filed affidavit and produced documents which are marked as Exhibits P1 to P9.
            4. Points : The complainants case is that he had availed a temporary electrical connection for one month for building construction. Rs.4000/- was deposited as security amount. The work was completed within one month. On completion of the work the complainant had applied for disconnection and also for removing the meter board and other apparatus. The respondents had disconnected the electrical supply and removed the electrical apparatus from the premises. Later the complainant applied to refund the amount deposited as security after deducting one month energy charges from him. But it was not done. So this complaint has filed. There is no evidence to the contrary.
            5. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay back the amount stated in Exhibit P1 receipt with 12% interest from 3/3/2000 till realization with cost Rs.500/- within one month.
 
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 17th day of April 2009.



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