TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. S SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are of the view that the appeal has to be accepted. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the complainant was required to make an additional security deposit in a sum of Rs. 610/ -. The complainant questioned it. Later the opposite party revised it claiming a sum of Rs. 450/ - as additional security deposit. This was also not deposited by the complainant, who went about writing letters to the opposite party. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule when the complainant has not made the deposit in spite of demand, the supply to the consumer was disconnected. The power to disconnect is not questioned by the complainant, nor can be questioned. The fact also remains that the complainant has not made additional security deposit.

(2.) IT is no doubt true that from the correspondence, we find that earlier on prior occasions whenever demands were made for deposit of additional security amount the complainant pointed out certain mistakes and certain facts upon which the amount demanded was revised. But the fact remains that every time when additional security deposit was called for and when representations were made by the complainant stating that the amount claimed was high and that he cannot be called up to make deposit such a high amount, the Department after taking into consideration the representation of the complainant revised it. That only shows that the opposite party has been responding to the representations of the complainant and that it cannot give room for any inference that there has been deficiency in service.

(3.) IN the result, we accept the appeal and set aside the order passed by the lower Forum. The order passed by the lower Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed. -