TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR Vs. MD JAMAL HOSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY this appeal the Finance Officer and the Deputy General Manager of the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (for short, Corporation), who are appellants herein, have called in question correctness and validity of the judgment dated 14.2.2008 rendered by the District Consumer Forum, South Tripura, Udaipur in case No. CPA -02 of 2007. By the said judgment the appellants have been directed to pay interest @ 10% p.a. from 1.6.2005 to 1.2.2007 when the security deposit of Rs. 3,600 of the respondent was actually returned by the corporation.

(3.) THE admitted position may be noticed in brief. The respondent herein, Md. Jamal Hossain, had a Grill Factory at Shilghati Bazar. He prayed for and obtained electric connection on payment of a security deposit of Rs. 3,600 in favour of the Corporation returnable at the time of disconnection. The respondent after certain period closed down the factory and then prayed for disconnection of the electricity line. Accordingly, it was disconnected on 30.5.2004. He prayed for return of the security money of Rs. 3,600 following disconnection. There was no positive response from the Corporation to his prayer. All his attempts to get back the money having failed he approached the District Forum by means of a complaint on 8.1.2007, more than two and half years from the date of disconnection. After the complaint was filed the Corporation returned the money to the respondent herein on 1.2.2007, after a period of two years nine months from the date of disconnection. This fact of the payment was brought to the notice of the District Forum. On the basis of the admitted facts aforementioned the District Forum directed that the Corporation should pay interest @ 10% p.a. for the aforesaid period and compensation of Rs. 2,500 within two months with a default stipulation of penal interest. The contention of the appellant before the District Forum that the delay was unintentional caused by transfer of the establishment from the State Government to the Corporation, failed to convince the Court for taking a more lenient view. Aggrieved by the said direction to pay interest and compensation the appellants moved this Commission by mean of the present appeal.