—Order— —Aggrieved by the order dt. 27-2-89, passed by the District Forum, Kota, the opposite party-appellant has filed this appeal under s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (No. 68 of 1986) (for short "the Act herein") by which the District Forum held that the opposite party-appellant can* demand additional security from the consumers taking the average consumption of 12 months and also to pay interest on the security amount at the rate which the Scheduled Banks pay on one year fixed deposit. 2. Facts leading to this appeal briefly put are these: the SSI Association, B-92, Indraprasth Industrial Area, Kota through its Secretary Shri Satish Gupta has filed the complaint stating that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) has issued notices under threat of disconnections to the small scale industrial consumers of electricity to pay additional security deposits ranging from few thousands to Rs. 90,000/- on a single consumer; that the Units which have received notices are very old power consumers and have already deposited the requisite security deposits at the time of release of power connections; that the units are paying electricity bills regularly even, at the enhanced rates imposed by RSEB from time to time; that the units have been forced to pay exorbitant meter rents, power factor surcharges, fuel surcharges and service charges imposed unilaterally without justification and that these were and are collected by RSEB because it is their sole monopoly to supply electricity. It has also been alleged that the RSEB has imposed security deposits on the SSI units in order to collect interest free revenue for which there is no justification. The following reliefs have been sought by the complainant in the complaint : (a) that the R.S.E.B. be directed to revoke the notices issued for additional security, (b) that the R.S.E.B. be restrained from harassing SSI units in future for such unreasonable demands and levies by it, (c) that the R.S.E.B. be restrained from threatening the consumers for disconnection on account of non-payments. 3. This complaint was filed on Dec. 3, 1988. Alongwith the complaint, notices were filed which were issued to some of the Small Scale Industries. 3. This complaint was filed on Dec. 3, 1988. Alongwith the complaint, notices were filed which were issued to some of the Small Scale Industries. The material part of the notice which is common in all reads as under :— "As per provision of clause 20(e) of General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges of the Power, the amount of enhanced security is required to be deposited on the basis of three months highest consumption for the preceding year 1987-88 which works out as under..." 4. Notice of the complaint was issued to the RSEB. The reply was filed on its behalf. The opposite party-appellant (RSEB) filed the version of the case raising various objections. It has submitted that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the nature filed by the complainant Association, for, the Act does not apply to matters which are regulated by the statutes or by rules framed thereunder and as General Conditions of Supply are statutory in character, the complainant Association could not invoke the jurisdiction to disregard the provisions of the General Conditions of Supply. An objection was also raised that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the supply of electricity is made by RSEB according to the General Conditions of Supply. It was averred by the Board that the security is nothing but payment of charge of electricity consumed during the period of three months for which bill is given to the consumer after three months. The Board narrated the procedure in this connection; first bill to the consumer is given after expiry of 2 1/2 months of the consumption; that the meter reading is taken after consumption of electricity for a month and after reading is recorded it takes about one month in preparation of the bill and thereafter 17 days time is given to the consumer to deposit the electricity charges; and, even if, thereafter the consumer does not pay, 7 days notice is also given to the consumer before any disconnection is ordered. According to the Board for a particular month while electricity is consumed day by day the payment is made after almost three months. According to the Board for a particular month while electricity is consumed day by day the payment is made after almost three months. Since the preparation and delivery of the bill is bound to take this time, it is only fair and reasonable that the consumer must also pay the dues but in the nature of things such simultaneous payment is not possible, therefore, payment of the consumption is taken at the beginning of the month which although termed as security but is in fact the payment of the electricity charges almost in the manner the electricity is consumed. According to the Board, security is not an advance payment and it is simply a payment at the time of consumption itself for which the bill is given later on. The complainant Associations claim for interest on the security amount was also contested and sought to be justified on the basis of N. B. (ii) appended to cl. 8 of Part II, Schedule of Service and Miscellaneous Charges. A rejoinder was filed by the complainant Association stoutly resisting the objections raised by the Board in its version of the case. 5. Three points arose for the consideration before the District Forum :— (1) whether the Board can take security from the consumers, (2) whether the Board was justified in demanding the security on the basis of average of any continuous three months and (3) whether the interest should be awarded to the consumers on the security amount, and, if so, at what rate. The District Forum by its order dated, Feb. 27, 1989 decided the complaint and recorded the fol-lowing findings :— 1. that the Board can take security from the consumers; 2. that the security should be demanded on the basis of the average of previous 12 months; and 3. that the Board should pay interest on the security amount which is paid by the Scheduled Banks on one year deposit. 6. Being dissatisfied, the Board has come up in appeal before us. The complainant Association has filed written submissions alongwith photostat copies of one document to show that the Telephone Department pays interest on the deposits made by the consumers under Own Your Telephone (OYT Scheme). In the written submissions the grounds taken by the Board in the memo of appeal were challenged. 7. We have heard Mr. R.R.L. Gupta, Advocate who was assisted by Mr. In the written submissions the grounds taken by the Board in the memo of appeal were challenged. 7. We have heard Mr. R.R.L. Gupta, Advocate who was assisted by Mr. B.K. Chatar, AEN for the appellant and Mr. Anant Kasliwal, Advocate for the respondent and have also carefully considered the record. 8. Before we proceed to examine the appeal on merits we may mention that the District Forum has relied on AIR 1983 S.C. 1296 and 1987 (I) R.L.R. 362. It was stated in the memo of appeal that the judgement reported in 1987 (1) R.L.R. 362 (AIR 1987 Rajasthan 131) has been challenged in special appeal and an ad interim order was passed on 15.5.87 by which the operation of that judgment was stayed. The photostat copy of the ad interim order was filed with the memo of appeal. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the appellant showed the order by which that order was made absolute to last until the decision of special appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of this it will be better if the hearing of the appeal is deferred until the decision of the special appeal. This was strongly opposed on behalf of the complainant-respondent. Having considered the matter we thought it proper not to defer the hearing of the appeal. 9. The District Forum has recorded a finding against the complainant Association that the Board has a right to take security from the consumers. This finding was not challenged by the complainant Association and, therefore, it is affirmed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of the District Forum that the security should be on the basis of the average of previous 12 months. -His submission is that the Board is justified in choosing any three months where there is highest consumption by the consumers, on the ground that according to the procedure provided for bills for a particular month while the electricity is consumed day by day, the payment is made after three months. He submitted that the criterion adopted by the Board of three months highest consumption for calculating three months security deposit is justified. The question that crops for our consideration is what should be the calculation of three months security deposit. He submitted that the criterion adopted by the Board of three months highest consumption for calculating three months security deposit is justified. The question that crops for our consideration is what should be the calculation of three months security deposit. This question directly arose in AIR 1987 Rajasthan 131—1987 (1) R.L.R. 362 wherein it was held that three months average of the previous year consumption should be adopted for enhancing the security deposit. To quote from that judgement : "To leave a blanket discretion in the hands of the Board that they may choose any three months where there is highest consumption by the consumer that will be unfair to the consumers. This would amount to putting the consumer in a disadvantageous position and leaving a room to the Board to exploit the consumers." 11. Reliance in this connection was placed on the following observations made in AIR 1983 S.C. 1296 : "He agreed, however, on the facts placed that the stand taken up by the Board that a demand equal to the energy bill of two months or a little more is not unreasonable. Once we reach the conclusion that the Board has power to unilaterally revise the conditions of the supply, it must follow that the demand of higher additional security, for payment of energy bills is unassailable, provided that the power is not exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably." 12. The learned Judge in AIR 1987 Rajasthan 131 categorically found that the criterion adopted for enhancing the security deposit in those cases appeared to be arbitrary and unreasonable. The highest court of the country has held that power should not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. On the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in our opinion the District Forum was right in holding that three months average of the previous year consumption should be adopted for enhancing the security deposit. We affirm the finding of the District Forum in this regard. 13. The second question that arises for our consideration is whether the District Forum was right in holding that the Board should pay interest on the security amount which is paid by the Scheduled Banks on one year deposit. Mr. We affirm the finding of the District Forum in this regard. 13. The second question that arises for our consideration is whether the District Forum was right in holding that the Board should pay interest on the security amount which is paid by the Scheduled Banks on one year deposit. Mr. R. R. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has challenged this finding and placed reliance on N.B. (ii) appended to Part II, Schedule of Service and Miscellaneous Charges which reads as under :— "(ii) No interest will be paid by the Board on the security deposit." 14. He pressed for our consideration that the security is a demand to ensure payment of the electricity charges almost in the manner, the electricity is consumed and it is a payment at the time of consumption itself for which bill is, given later on and therefore, the consumers cannot be paid interest by the Board on the security deposit. He sought to distinguish AIR 1983 S.C. 1296 by making reference to para 7 of the Act. Learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in AIR 1987 Rajasthan 131 took the view that the amount of enhanced security remains with the Board as a trust money and the consumers cannot be denied legitimate interest on that amount. He repelled the argument which is advanced before us. 15. It will be useful to excerpt the following from AIR 1983 S.C. 1296 : "On the security amount interest at the rate of 4 % was initially payable. The same has already been enhanced to 8 % p.a. Since the amount is held as security, we indicated to the counsel for the Board that security amount should bear the same interest which is admissible on fixed deposits of Scheduled Banks......and we suggested keeping the present rate of interest in view that it should be enhanced to 10 %. Boards counsel has now agreed that steps would be taken to enhance the present rate of interest of 8% to 10% with effect from Oct. 1, 1983." 16. It was, therefore, held that the consumers are entitled to interest at the rate which is admissible to fixed deposit of Scheduled Banks for a term of one year proportionately. The learned Judge, therefore, struck down, Note (ii) below security deposits in Part II of the Schedule of Service and Miscellaneous Charges which denies interest to depositor (consumer). It was, therefore, held that the consumers are entitled to interest at the rate which is admissible to fixed deposit of Scheduled Banks for a term of one year proportionately. The learned Judge, therefore, struck down, Note (ii) below security deposits in Part II of the Schedule of Service and Miscellaneous Charges which denies interest to depositor (consumer). The District Forum was right in relying upon it. The view taken by the learned single Judge finds support from the observations extracted above from AIR 1983 S. C. 1296. We may add that security is nothing but the amount belonging to the consumers and the Board is a custodian of that amount for its future payment of the charges for the consumption of energy consumed by the consumers. For all these reasons we find ourselves in agreement with the District Forum that the Board is liable to pay interest on the security amount at the same rate which Scheduled Banks pay on one year deposits. We, therefore, affirm the finding of the District Forum on this point. 17. Learned Counsel for appellant faintly argued that the District Forum should not have decided the complaint as the total claim of the complainant (association) far exceeded Rs. 1,00,000/-, for, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum is where the value of the goods and the compensation is less than rupees one lakh. This objection was not taken in the version of the case. It has only been raised in the memo of appeal. Apart from that the complainant has filed some notices which were issued to the consumers in which additional security varies from few thousands to Rs. 95,500/-. The highest amount of additional security as- appears from the notices filed is Rs. 95,500/- which is less than rupees one lakh. For all these reasons, objection relating to pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be accepted. The matter is being examined by the State Commission in appeal. 18. The last contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the District Forum ought not to have decided the questions of security and interest. The Secretary of Small Scale Industries Association (SSI) has filed the complaints as notices were issued to the Small Scale Industrial Consumers. We have considered the definitions of "consumer" "complainant" "complaint" "deficiency" and "service" mentioned in s. 2(1) of the Act. The Secretary of Small Scale Industries Association (SSI) has filed the complaints as notices were issued to the Small Scale Industrial Consumers. We have considered the definitions of "consumer" "complainant" "complaint" "deficiency" and "service" mentioned in s. 2(1) of the Act. Having examined the allegations in the complaint, We are of opinion that on the complaint of the SSI Association the District Forum could decide the questions of security and interest. S. 12(b) of the Act permits filing of the complaint by any recognized consumer association. Apart from this in AIR 1987 Rajasthan 131 it has been held that the aforesaid Note (ii) is illegal and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. In view of the decision reported in 1988 (2) R.L.R. page 399 all the small scale industrial consumers are entitled to take benefit of it. This contention is also devoid of force and is rejected. 19. No other point was argued, 20. The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. 21. Order pronounced on July 5, 1989.