STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/1174/2018 Smt.Leela Devi PRESENT ADDRESS - W/o Sampathraj, R/a N.86, Govindappa road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-

04,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus The Executive Engineer PRESENT ADDRESS - KPTCL (BESCOM), W6, Sub-division, Bengaluru-26,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO DATED: 30/10/2025

ORDER

THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

th

DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

APPEAL NO.1174/2018

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER Smt.Leela Devi, W/o Sri.Sampathraj, R/at No.86, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 04.

...Appellant (Rep. by Sri.C.V.Annaiah, Advocate)

-Versus-

The Executive Engineer, KPTCL (BESCOM), W6, Sub-Division, Bengaluru - 26.

...Respondent (Rep. by Sri.Prashant.T.Pandit, Advocate)

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Learned Counsels for both the parties are present. Heard from both side.

The Appellant/complainant in consumer complaint No.1518/2013 preferred this Appeal against the order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru which dismissed the complaint as not maintainable, since she is not a consumer comes under the definition of Sec.2(1)d of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Act against which the Appellant before this Commission.

2. The gist of the complaint is that;

The complainant had obtained one electricity connection vide RR No.W2 P1250 (1110603 W6 P1250) in the year 2002 for industrial purpose. There afterwards, she sought for disconnection of the electricity supply and demanded for refund of the deposited amount to the tune of Rs.43,170/- 3 months minimum deposit amount, Rs.15,404/- meter security deposit amount, Rs.23,500/- supervision charges, Rs.27,000/- BMRDA charges, Rs.150/- Sub Charges. Instead of refund, the Respondent has issued a notice for payment of dues. When the amount was not paid by Appellant, the said amount was adjusted to the bill and declined to pay and refund the amount. Against which the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for refund of the amount along with compensation of Rs.1,09,074/- along with 21% interest including the cost. The District Commission after trail had dismissed the complaint holding that the dispute will not fall within the definition of Consumer dispute as per the Consumer Protection Act and arrived for the opinion that the complainant is not a Consumer against which the complainant before this Commission.

3. The Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that after the receipt of the letter for refund of the deposited amount they have adjusted the entire amount towards the arrears. Hence submits there is no any deficiency in the service and the same was not considered, instead of that the District Commission had dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. Even though complaint is not maintainable there is no any deficiency in service. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal also.

4. The Learned Counsel for Appellant filed notes of arguments. Heard from both sides.

5. Perused the certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission and appeal memo we noticed the opinion given by the District Commission is not acceptable. The complainant when alleges deficiency in service in denying the payment of deposited amount, the said dispute falls within the definition of “Consumer Disputes” as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is maintainable. Anyhow, we noted the amount which sought for refund was adjusted to the balance payment due by the complainant. Hence, she is not entitled to get any refund of the amount. When the deposited amount was adjusted to the dues, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. The compl