BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.250 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 05.07.2019

                Date of Decision: 05.08.2024

Ashish Gupta aged about 47 years son of Sh. Joginder Pal Gupta R/o H. No.14, Ward No.45, Dilbagh Nagar, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Punjab Circle, G.P.O.      Building, Jalandhar through its General Manager.

2.       S. D.O. (Commercial), BSNL, G.P.O. Building, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. A. P. S. Pathania, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant was the regular customer of the OP No.1 having telephone No.2238700. As the services of the OP No.1 was not as described at the time of installation of the above telephone number, hence the complainant decided to willfully surrender the said telephone No.2238700, vide receipt No.8020979189 dated 20.02.2017. At the time of surrender of the application, all the dues payable by the complainant was cleared by the cop and security of Rs.749/- was due towards the OP No.1 and to be processed by the OP No.2. Waiting for more than two months after surrendering the above said telephone number, the complainant did not receive the security deposit refund from the OPs. The complainant visited the OP No.2 personally and met Mr.Varinder on 23.05.2017 and he informed him that refund of the security has been processed from his end vide docket No.RE0005646507. Mr.Varinder Kumar further informed that the complainant will receive security amount of Rs.749/- by November, 2017. Till date the complainant has not received security deposit of Rs.749/- due towards OP No.1 and to be processed by the OP No.2. The complainant many times requested the OPs to refund the security amount, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund security amount of Rs.749/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with immediate effect. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has filed the present case without any reasons or cause of action. Neither there is any deficiency in service, negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. It is further averred that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious against the answering OPs. The complainant is not entitled for any such damages or claim as claimed in the case. It is further averred that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint. The complainant was already informed by the BSNL that his refund cheque was already received but could not be delivered due to the above mentioned reasons and his case is again under process at Chandigarh Office and as and when the same will be received, the cheque will be handed over to him. But the complainant intentionally withheld the above said information at the time of filing the above said complaint. It is further averred that the complainant had been using the above said telephone connection of his commercial purposes, so the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was the customer of the OP No.1 having telephone No.2238700. It is also admitted that the complainant willfully surrendered the telephone number on 20.02.2017, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                It is admitted that the complainant was the customer of the OP No.1 having telephone No.2238700 in the name of the complainant. It is also admitted that the complainant willfully surrendered the telephone number on 20.02.2017, however other allegations have been denied by the OP. The receipt has been proved as Ex.C-1. The complainant has alleged that at the time of surrender of the application, all the dues were paid, but Rs.749/- was due towards the OP and the same were to be paid by the OP. Despite his request number of times, the refund of security has not been made to the complainant. The complainant has proved on record the receipt Ex.C-2 vide which the security was allegedly processed from their end, but the security has not been refunded. The OP has denied the document Ex.C2. Perusal of Ex.C-2 shows that this document is the docket for refund of the security duly signed by Mr.Varinder Singh on 21.08.2017. Though, this document has been denied by the OP, but it has been admitted by the OPs that the refund was processed. Thus, the OP has admitted that the refund is to be made to the complainant. It is admitted that the cheque was also ready, but due to the fact that name and amount was not visible, therefore, the cheque was again processed at Chandigarh office and same will be delivered as and when the same is received from the Chandigarh Office. The complainant has not come present in the Court, so it cannot be said as to whether he has received the refund or not nor this is the case of OP. The process was allegedly initiated in the year 2017. The cheque dated 19.07.2019 was ready for payment, but the same could not be delivered, meaning thereby that the complainant surrendered the number in the year 2017, but the refund was not made till 2019 as admitted by the OP in their written statement. Even in the year 2019, the cheque could not be delivered due to the fact that the same was not legible and visible. No document is there to show that the refund was made. So, the complainant has proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the security amount of Rs.749/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with immediate effect. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

05.08.2024         Member                          Member                President