JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order dated 11.09.2003 passed by the District Forum. Haridwar whereby the complaint of the complainant has been dismissed finding that there were dues of Rs. 9,633/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Three) against the complainant, which has not been deposited, therefore the complaint is dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Vijendra acronychal Power Corporation Ltd. 1241 Kumar filed a complaint before the Learned Forum that there was a connection in the name of his father. The father is dead. The record shows that the father died on 30.01.2001. It is said that the complainant was in need of the connection, therefore 01.03.2000 he applied for permanent disconnection of the connection. There was a earlier bill of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), which was adjusted and the final bill was issued and the entire amount was deposited. On 09.03.2000 the fee of disconnection was also deposited and thereafter the respondent removed the entire cable, meter and other equipments: It is alleged in para 4 of the complaint that a bill of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) was due but as the security of Rs. 3,300/(Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred) was deposited with the opposite party, therefore he applied that after deduction of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred), security amount be refunded to him but the amount has not been refunded, therefore the complainant applied for refund of the said amount through this complaint. 3. The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the connection is in the name of Sh. Nathu Ram. There is no mutation, therefore the complainant is not a consumer. It is incorrect to say that there entire amount has been realized from the complainant but there was still due against the complainant. It is said that a sum of Rs. 9,633/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Three) is still due against the complainant. 4. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the Learned Forum rejected the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. It is said that the flourmill was for commercial purposes, therefore the complaint shall not lie. 4. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the Learned Forum rejected the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. It is said that the flourmill was for commercial purposes, therefore the complaint shall not lie. It is specifically written in para 1 of the complaint as well as in para 1 of the grounds of appeal that the connection was taken for self employment and livelihood. There is no contention that it was running for any other commercial purposes, therefore the complaint cannot be barred on the ground that the connection was for commercial purposes. 6. Now the question is whether the complainant can get the relief or not. It is very fantastic that on the one hand it is said that the complainant is not a consumer because his name has not been mutated and on the other hand recovery is desired from him. If the complainant is not a consumer, no recovery can be made from him. It was argued that the electricity was supplied, it was the duty of the complainant to have informed the department about the death of his father. If the complainant is not a consumer he is not bound to inform the department. The department should make its own inquiries and should take action accordingly. Electricity is supplied under some agreement and if .one of the party dies the agreement comes to an end. If the complainant is not a consumer the agreement has come to an end with the death of the consumer. The burden to inform about the death lies only when the applicant applies for mutation. It the applicant does not apply for mutation, if he does not want electricity, why he should be forced to take it. 7. In this particular case, the complainant has applied for disconnection before the death of his father itself. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the electricity department that during the life time of his father, the complainant was not entitled to apply for disconnection because he was not a consumer. 7. In this particular case, the complainant has applied for disconnection before the death of his father itself. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the electricity department that during the life time of his father, the complainant was not entitled to apply for disconnection because he was not a consumer. It is true but it will also reveal at the same time that when in the lifetime of his father, the complainant was not entitled to apply for disconnection, why after death of his father he should be asked to continue consumption. This will definitely show that he was not interest in mutation and it he was not interest in mutation, he was neither duty bound to inform about the death of his father to the department, nor to apply for mutation. 8. It is true that the security deposit is in the name of his father and it cannot be refunded to the complainant without mutation or succession certificate but it is still true that the recovery could not have been -made from the complainant. At least the Learned Counsel for the opposite party has shown a recovery certificate in the name of Sh. Nathu Ram. Recovery certificate in the name of further after his death is totally illegal and is unenforceable in law and cannot be enforced. 9. We are sorry that the complainant has not claimed any relief regarding canceling of this recovery certificate, therefore we cannot give him any relief. However we hold that on the basis of this recovery certificate in the name of a dead person, no recovery can be aide from the complainant. The relief as claimed is only for the refund of the security amount. As given in the, complaint" security amount is Rs. 3,300/(Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred), Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) is already due against the further. The security has been deposited in the name of the father. Only Rs. 800/- (Rupees Eight Hundred) is to be refunded to the legal representative of the consumer according to law but it cannot be refunded to the complainant without a proper succession certificate or mutation. There may be other heirs of Sh. Nathu Ram as well who may come forward the other day to claim for refund, therefore relief No. (a) cannot be granted to the complainant. There may be other heirs of Sh. Nathu Ram as well who may come forward the other day to claim for refund, therefore relief No. (a) cannot be granted to the complainant. Relief No. (b) is that of compensation for non-knifed of the security amount. When the complainant is not entitled to any relief regarding refund , he is also not entitled to any compensation. As egad relief No. (c), which is cost of litigation, the complainant has unnecessary' been filed. It has not been filed for proper relief, therefore there is no question of any cost. 10. As a result the complaint is to be dismissed. The appeal has also got no force on the basis of reliefs as claimed. No relief can be granted to the complainant and the appeal is to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy.