Orissa

Kendujhar

39/1996

Sri Sarat Kumar Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Accounts Officer (TRA) - Opp.Party(s)

26 May 1997

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KENDUJHAR

C.D. CASE NO.39 OF 1996

Sri Sarat Kumar Rout,

S/o- Late Baikuntha Rout,

At/P.O- Magurgadia,

Dist- Keonjhar                                   ………………………….Complainant

            Vrs.

1. Accounts Officer (TRA),

O/O, T.D.E. Dhenkanal,

Dist- Dhenkanal

2. S.D.O. (Telephone No.1)

At/Post/Dist- Keonjhar

3. Asst. Engineer Phone,

At/Post/Dist- Keonjhar         ………………………Opp. Parties

 

Advocate for complainant- Self

Advocate for O.Ps- Sri S.N. Mahanta (Govt. Pleader)

 

Present- Sri Binayak Acharya, President

                   Dr. K.K. Dwibedi, Member

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Date of Hearing: 05.05.1997                                                        Date of Order: 26.05.1997

SRI B. ACHARYA, PRESIDENT: The brief facts of this case is that the complainant is an advocate by profession practicing in the District Bar Association, Keonjhar and a permanent resident of Keonjhar who had applied before the OPs for connection of a new Telephone in the year 1992. On receipt of the Demand Note amounting Rs.1850/- from the OP. No.3 the complainant in obedience to the Demand Note deposited the same without any delay on 11.12.92 which was to be deposited on or before 24.12.92. In the demand note they had charged Rs.900/- against security deposit, Rs.800/- towards installation fee and Rs.150/- for fixed monthly/ annual rental for main connection. Though there was no negligence in the part of the complainant, the OPs delayed and had given the connection to the complainant on 1.8.95 under Non-OYT general scheme after long lapse of time. The OPs allotted the telephone No.3423 to the complainant. On 11.10.95 for the first time they had given a telephone bill to the complainant amounting to Rs.1449/-. So in this bill they had charged Rs.2000/- towards security deposit/ registration fee, again Rs.800/- towards installation fee by monthly rental advance Rs.200/- and by monthly bill dt.11.10.95 amounting to Rs.299/- altogether Rs.3299/- deducted the Rs.1850/- previously received and charged rest Rs.1449/- in the first bill. When the complainant came to know that the installation fees has been charged again for the second time and security deposit/ registration fee Rs.2000/- has been charged instead of Rs.900/- which was previously paid, he became dissatisfied and complained before the OPs who were the authorities for correction of the bill. Though the complainant requested the OPs for many a times for correction of such errors they had not taken his allegation into consideration. Rather warned him by telephonic message to disconnect the telephone connection unless he would pay the amount they had charged. So without getting any relief from them the circumstances compelled the complainant to take rescue of this court and hence filed this case on 18.3.96.

2. On receipt of the notice the OPs filed jointly their version on 21.1.97. This case was rightly admitted as this case is within the territorial and both pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum and the case has been filed within the period of limitation. In the written version the OPs have admitted the case of complainant and receipt of Rs.1850/- in the year 1992. But have given an explanation that the money which was deposited as security deposit was taken as registration fee and was enhanced to Rs.2000/- since 28.4.93. As such any connection given before, that date was subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as registration fee. Accordingly from Rs.3299/- they deducted Rs.1850/- which they had received before and further charged the rest amount Rs.1449/- to the complainant otherwise they were to disconnect the telephone connection. From the opp. side the G.P. was conducting the defense and when he was asked how they were deserving of getting the enhanced charge he could not satisfy the court. Simply they said that if the subscriber will not deposit the subsequent charge amount which has been enhanced since 28.4.93 the connection of the complainant is liable to be disconnected. But to our utter surprise though the charge had been paid already in obedience to their Demand Note in the year 1992 what prevented the OPs to make it delayed for a pretty long time up to 1995 without any mistake of the complainant. Moreover though according to them the security deposit had been turned as registration fee and enhanced from Rs.900/- to Rs.2000/- and they gave the connection on 1.8.95 prior to which they had already received the orders of enhancement made since 28.4.93 what prevented them not to inform the complainant at the time of installation on 1.8.95. So it is definitely the negligence of the OPs not to inform the complainant in right time and to charge the same after a long lapse of time of his telephone requisition and deposit already made according to their demand. The OPs also could not show that the enhancement since 28.4.93 had its retrospective effect as a result of which the complainant will be compelled to deposit the enhanced amount though sufficiently before he had requisitioned the telephone connection. So the complainant had no negligence in any manner and is a respectable person in the society. It is no good to warn him from time to time without his mistake which is deficiently a humiliation to him to disconnect his phone without informing him the rate of enhancement at the time of giving telephone connection on 1.8.95. In our opinion the excess demand and warning for disconnection from time to time is definitely a humiliation to a respectable person and harassment.

3. Therefore, we allow the petition and the OPs are jointly and severally directed to be liable to pay 12% interest per annum of Rs.1850/- from 11.12.92 to 31.7.95 and not to disconnect his telephone connection and not to charge Rs.800/- more for the second time towards installation charge which they had already received in their prior demand note as the complainant is not liable for the subsequent enhanced amount and deserving of getting his connection as per the provisions prevailed during his deposit of the first demand note on 11.12.92. The OPs are further directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.3000/- towards the mental sock, agony and unnecessary harassment to the complainant within thirty days from the date of pronouncement of this order and pay Rs.12.5% interest from the date of judgment on the amount i.e. compensation amount of Rs.3000/- & interest on deposit of 1850/- up to till the final payment of the amount if they fail to comply.

          Order pronounced in the open Forum today i.e. 26^th day of May, 1997 under my hand and seal of the Forum.

 

       I agree

 Dr. K.K. Dwibedi                                                                                            Sri B. Acharya

      Member                                                                                                            President   

                                                                          Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                                       Sri B. Acharya

                                                                                            President