DATE OF FILING: 05.09.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 24.01.2017.
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W).
The complainant has filed this consumer disputes Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Parties (for short O.Ps) alleging deficiency in telephone service and redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that when he was a lecturer at K.S.U.B. College, Bhanjanagar at that time he was a subscriber of telephone No. 240219 at Gayatrinagar Landei Street Bhanjanagar which is under Bhanjanagar Telephone exchange. The O.P.No.1 is the head office of O.P.No.2. After being transferred as Principal Kalinga Mahavidyalaya G.Udayagiri, Kandhamal district he had surrendered his telephone (Basic) to the BSNL Office (O.P.No.2). The complainant after several persuasion and request to O.P.No.2 has lodged a written complaint for return of caution money. Again on 27.1.2010 and 16.6.2012 the complainant sent registered letter to O.P.No.2 regarding return of caution money and the O.P.No.2 received the letter on 18.6.2012. On 2.8.2012 the complainant intimated the fact to O.P.No.1 through registered letter copy to the SDO Bhanjanagar Telephone Exchange to expedite the matter of returning the caution money at an early date but no action has been taken till today. On 24.7.2013 the complainant has filed a case bearing No. 23/13 in the district consumer forum Kandhamal , Phulabni, but the Honorable court has rejected on the point of jurisdiction. The complainant is a law abiding senior citizen and prudent and bonafide consumer having no alternative, except to file the above case. The Opposite Party has deliberately committed deficiency service, harassed the complainant by not returning caution money. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund caution money alongwith 12% interest till date alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony, harassment and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation expenses in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.Ps filed written version/ argument through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are not all correct as such the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. After closure of the telephone number 06821-240219, finalization of the accounts was made by the O.Ps and the security amount of Rs.693/- was returned to the complainant vide cheque No. 000117 dated 19.7.2010 after deducting the unpaid bill amounts of the consumer. The above cheque was sent to the consumer through Regd. Post vide RLD No. 2805 dated 13.8.2010. The O.Ps submit that an amount of Rs.507/- was outstanding against the consumer till the date of closure of the above telephone number of the consumer, for which the outstanding amount against the consumer was deducted from the security deposit amount and the rest amount of Rs.693/- was returned to complainant in shape of account payee cheque through Regd. Post on 13.8.2010 after finalization of the account of the complainant. But the said cheque was returned back to the O.Ps by the postal department with remarks “Addressee left without instruction, hence returned to the sender”. Since finalization of account is already made by the O.Ps by sending the cheque to the complainant, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. After a gap of almost two years the complainant tried to contact to the O.Ps and the O.Ps have taken steps to return the same. Even though their higher authority to deal with public mater in the office of the O.P. like AGM, DGM, CAO and GMTD, Berhampur, the complainant had not thought it fair enough to bring their kind attention in to the matter and without exhausting the official channels and without giving a chance to the O.Ps to redress the matter, the complainant has taken shelter of this Forum by unnecessarily dragging them to the litigation. Since the cheque was refunded once which returned back, there is no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps while providing service to the complainant. It is not a fact that the O.Ps has got dome malafide intention to harass the complainant as submitted by the complainant in his application. It is also not a fact that the O.Ps with some ulterior motive intentionally did not pay the amount which doubled the mental agony of the complainant. Hence the O.Ps prayed the present proceeding is not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. On the date of final hearing of consumer dispute both the learned counsel for the complainant as well as for O.Ps are present. We heard the argument from both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument filed by both the parties which are placed on the case record. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is a law abiding senior citizen working as a lecture at K.S.U.B. College, Bhanjanagar, he subscribed for telephone bearing No. 240219 at Gayatrinagar Landei Street, Bhanjanagar. Thereafter when he was transferred as Principal Kalinga Mahavidyalaya , G.Udayagiri, Kandhamal district he had surrendered his telephone on dated 13.10.2008. As per record, he approached several times to O.Ps to return the caution money which already deposited with S.D.O. Bhanjanagar when telephone surrendered, then and there the caution money will be returned back but surprisingly no security deposit was paid to him till execute this case. The complainant surrendered telephone on 13.11.2008. On 5.3.2016 the complainant received a draft of Rs.693/- bearing cheque No.009471. In this his contention the complainant prayed for payment of interest @ 12% by the O.Ps for delay, mental agony and litigation expenses to meet the ends of justice.
5. On the contrary advocate for O.Ps are appeared before this Forum and submitted their argument. He admitted that the complainant had surrendered his telephone on 13.10.2008. Learned counsel for O.Ps contended that finalization of accounts was made by the O.P. No.2 where he found that outstanding due of Rs.507/- against the consumer till the closure of above telephone number and O.P No.2 is deducted the outstanding amount from the caution money. He further stated that on 13.8.2010 after finalized account, cheque was sent to the complainant through account payee cheque but it is returned back to the O.P. with a remark on postal Department “Addressee left without instruction”. So it does not amount to deficiency in service by O.P.No.2. The O.Ps have no intention to harass the complainant and prayed that the O.Ps may be exempted from liability fixed on them in the interest of justice.
6. We have carefully perused the pleadings and have gone through the material placed on record. It is evident from the written argument from the complainant that the complainant received the cheque with an objection. It is also evident that the complainant surrendered his telephone on 13.10.2008 and finalization of account was made on 4.2.2010 and it was found that the complainant had an amount of Rs. 507/- as outstanding amount toward payment of telephone due. The rest amount of Rs.693/- should be refunded to the complainant. It is also evident that on 5.10.2013 the O.P. made cheque (Union Bank) in favour of the complainant, as the complainant was not in the given address the O.Ps could not delivered it. On 5.3.2016 Invoice dated 29.2.2016 BSNL Ref No. 1900031443 amounting to Rs.693/- of ICICI Bank sent to the complainant and the said amount was received by the complainant on 15.03.2016 with objection. The O.Ps in his written version para-2 stated that vide cheque No. 000117 dated 19.07.2010 was sent through Registered post vide RL. D 2805 dated 13.08.2010 to the complainant but on perusal of record the statement of account (Telephone finalization bill) it was found that no other relevant documents were submitted by the O.Ps in this context. Another cheque on 5.10.2013 in the name of complainant through Union Bank was submitted by the O.Ps. In the light of above discussion we like to say that the complainant surrendered his telephone on dated 13.10.2008, bill finalized by the O.Ps on 4.2.2010 and cheque sent to the complainant on 5.10.2013. Hence, there is delay in refund of the security amount by the O.Ps. Where there is delay in refunding the amount of security deposit made by the complainant, it is amounts to deficiency in service which attracts penalty of payment of interest at the rate of savings bank rate of interest. In this case the complainant has already received the security amount of Rs.693 /- with objection and the complainant is only entitled to receive the interest as per savings bank rate of interest. In the light of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstance of the case we partly allowed the case of the complainant against the O.Ps.
7. In the result, the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to pay interest at the rate of savings bank on Rs.693/- from date of refund i.e. on 05.10.2013 up to actual date of payment. However, we are not intended to direct the O.P. No. 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards compensation as prayed by the complainant but interested to award a modest amount of Rs.200/- only towards cost of litigation since the O.Ps neither settled the matter within a reasonable period even after filing of this consumer dispute. The aforesaid amount of interest shall be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order by the O.Ps failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the said amount from O.Ps under Section 27/25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
8. The order is pronounced on this day of 24th January 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and be sent to the server of
