The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant who is the mobile subscriber of the OP sent a letter to the OP on 24.09.2007 intimating that her number to be kept in safe custody with the OP for a period of three months approximately as she has to go to the United States. Complainant returned on January 2008 and on 07.01.2008 wrote a letter to the OP for reactivation of her number but surprisingly she was informed that her number was permanently disconnected without any communication inspite of clear written instruction that the number be kept in safe custody for approximately 3 months and moreover she was also told that permanent disconnections cannot be reversed but she has to apply for a fresh connection and pay the required security deposit again. Complainant had approached a number of times for sorting out the problem with the OP but could not get her number reactivated and asked the OP to refund her security deposit of Rs 1,000. On 25.06.2009 someone at the Retention Help Desk, Shillong communicated through mail stating that the security deposit shows as refunded on 30.01.2008 and 28.07.2008 in their system but returned back due to change of address. Till date Complainant has not received her security deposit. Hence she filed this complaint and prays before this Forum to direct the OP to refund her security deposit with interest along with compensation for deficiency in service, mental harassment and loss of personal connectivity due to disconnection of the number. In the show cause, the OP in their reply stated that it is a fact that the Complainant had requested the authorities to keep her number in safe custody for 3 months i.e 90 days w.e.f 04.10.2007. As per the safe custody policy of the OP the reactivation can be applied on the customer with her consent with a period of either 30/60/90 days. Whereas the Complainant applied for the said reactivation after the expiry of 90 days i.e after 94 days which automatically becomes a ground for disconnection of the telephone and put the said telephone in churn. OP further stated that they had tried to return the security deposit to the Complainant and sent a cheque bearing No. 30072 dated 29.01.2008 vide courier on 13.02.2008, but the same was not received by the Complainant and returned back to the OP,s Office. In her rejoinder Complainant reiterated the fact as stated in her complaint. She also stated that she had never change her address for last 30 years and that she used to receive monthly bills in the same address since 2006 2007 but surprisingly the cheque they sent never reached her address. She also stated that there is deficiency in service by the OP and there was no co ordination among the staff of the OP and she was not informed anything about the cheque that time. Complainant examined one witness who deposed that on 24.09.2007 when he submitted an application for safe custody of the number, he was not told about the date or period needed to be kept in custody and 07.01.2008 on permission from the Complainant submitted a letter to the OP for reactivation of the number. Complainant,s witness was never crossed by the OP though opportunity was given to them. Complainant filed written argument and stated that the OP accepted her letter on 04.10.2007 but did not explain or reject the same and kept her number in safe custody which means that Complainant had received no bills for rental during that period and had cleared all bills before October 2007. She further stated that there was no contradiction regarding dates as she had already signed the letter and gave it to one Shri R.A.J Syngkon who submitted the same on her behalf on 07.01.2008 i.e one day before her return to India. She further stated that OP disconnected her phone line without prior notice and kept saying for many months that they were looking into the matter of reactivation but instead had allotted her number to other person and make her run from pillar to post. The OP even failed to reply to her legal notice. Finally it was only after about a year on 29.10.2009 that the OP started communicating with her through emails even so failed to refund her security deposits. She therefore prayed for relief as stated in her complaint petition. OP never filed any written argument. On the basis of documents on record, evidence adduced and arguments put forth by the parties, this Forum makes the following observations 1. Though the OP had its own policy on specific period for keeping the number in safe custody i.e within 30/60/90 days but the same was never informed to the Complainant. Allotment of the number to a different person without the knowledge of the Complainant has definitely led to the hardship to her. 2. Complainant delayed by 3 days to report to the OP for reactivation of her number. However since the Complainant was never informed about the policy on deactivation, the OP should have made an effort to consider or seek the consent of the Complainant if she was still willing to use the connection. 3. The OP had not produced any documentary prove to show that they had dispatched the cheque to the Complainant. On the basis of the above observations, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service by the OP as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We therefore direct the OP to refund the security deposit to the Complainant along with interest at 9 p.c from the date from which the return of the same was due. We also direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs 5,000 as compensation towards deficiency in service and mental harassment caused to the Complainant. The OP is directed to comply with the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Case disposed off.