1 Ms.
Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner, would contend that the Ombudsman has erred in taking a different view than the view taken by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhavnagar, which refused to order payment of interest and refund security deposit in view of non-performance of duties to be discharged by the petitioner after opting Option No.II for seeking electricity supply.
2 As against the above, Mr. Vimal Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 relying on sub-section [4] of Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003, wherein it is provided that, the distribution licensee shall pay interest equivalent to the bank rate or more, as may be specified by the concerned State Commission, on the security referred to in sub-section [1] and refund such security on the request of the person who gave such security, and submitted that the Ombudsman has awarded interest not for the entire period but from the date when the competent authority of the respondent Electricity company sanctioned the refund and actual date of payment.
3 Prima facie, I am of the view that the Ombudsman ought not have disturbed the clear findings of facts recorded by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhavnagar and no interest ought to have ordered on the amount refunded by the electricity company.
4 In view of the above, issue Rule.
Learned advocate Mr. Vimal Patel waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 5 By way of interim relief, order impugned shall remain stayed till final disposal of the petition and payment of amount of interest and further interest thereon shall be subject to the outcome of this petition.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) pvv Page 2 of 2