Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/104

Mohamad Hanif - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ajay Talwar, Adv.

28 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 104 of 18.12.2015

                                 Date of decision               : 28.06.2016

 

Mohamad Hanif, aged about 51 years, son of Sh. Sadiq Mohamad, resident of Village Mainpur, Tehsil & District Rupnagar. 

                                                                                      ......Complainant

                                             Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Rupnagar Telecom Circle, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its General Manager.

                          ....Opposite Party

 

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Ajay Talwar Advocate, counsel for complainant

Sh. Daljeet Singh Saini, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party 

 

 

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Mohamad Hanif has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for issuance of the following directions to it:-

i)       To refund him the security amount of Rs.1000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum,

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss  caused to him

iii)     To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost. 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got installed at his house a landline telephone connection bearing No. 01881-278125 on 07.08.1998 by depositing security fee of Rs.1000/- at annual deposit of Rs.600/- and monthly rent of Rs.20/-.  He never defaulted the payment of rent. In the year 2014, the opposite party had increased the annual rent of landline telephone from Rs.600/- to Rs.1320/- without giving notice to him. He is doing private job in courier company and in these high day of prices, the increased rent was not affordable to him.  He visited the opposite party and gave application to disconnect the landline telephone as he was not in condition to pay increased rent, then office bearer of opposite party had told him to pay the last rent and due bill amount of landline phone and afterwards his security amount of Rs.1000/- will be refunded. Accordingly, he had paid the last bill and due bill amount vide receipt dated 09.04.2014. He inquired about the security amount of Rs.1000/- from the officials of the opposite party but instead of refunding his amount,  they were lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other, even after completion of all the formalities called for by the OPs.  Hence, this complaint. 

3.                On being put to notice, the OP filed written version in the shape of affidavit of Sh. Talwinder Singh, Divisional Engineer Legal, admitting therein that the complainant had deposit Rs.1000/- as advance for new telephone connection out of this Rs.600/- as security, Rs.300/- as installation fee and Rs.100/- adjusted in bill. There was no monthly rent of Rs.20/- in rural area. It is stated that Rs.600/- annual rent was added on plan for rural areas given by the BSNL HD for limited period. The complainant has opted this plan due to which annual rent @ Rs.600/- was charged.  On 01.04.2014, this plan was withdrawn by BSNL and all the customers opted for this plan were again migrated to rural standard package i.e. of Rs.120/- per month. No bill for this enhanced rental was issued to complainant as the telephone was closed permanently on 21.4.2014 on customer’s request. Telephonic information was given to the complainant regarding withdrawn of his add-on plan on the basis of which complainant might have given an application to surrender his telephone. It is further stated that on the basis of customer application to disconnect his telephone, the telephone was disconnected on dated 21.4.2014/ Bill issued for the period up to 31.3.2014 of Rs.20/- was paid on 09.04.2014 by complainant before closing of his telephone. Refund case was processed by our telecom revenue section and cheque No.826389 of Rs.318/- was issued to the customer after adjustment of balance outstanding bill Rs.82/- and telephone instrument cost of Rs.200/- from total security of Rs.600/-. The cheque was dispatched vide Dispatch Register entry No.3380 to Sh.Mohamad Hanif son of Sh. Sadiq Mohamad VPO Mianpur, District Ropar. It is further stated that the O.P. has already refunded the security amounting of Rs/318/- vide cheque No.826389 but the cheque was not presented for clearance by the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same in the interest of justice.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1 alongwith documents Original bill receipt dated 09.04.2014 Ex.C-2, Original Bill receipt dated 21.06.2013 Ex.C-3, Original bill receipt dated 02.05.2013 Ex.C-4, Original bill receipt dated 29.10.2012 Ex.C-5, Original bill dated 04.08.2012 Ex.C-6, Original bill dated 06.02.2012 Ex.C-7, Original Bill dated 14.04.2011 Ex.C-8, Original Bill dated 11.02.2011 Ex.C-9, Original Bill dated 12.06.2011 Ex.C-10, Original Bill dated 07.12.2010 Ex.C-11, Photocopy of Security Receipt of Department of Tele Communication dated 07.08.1998 Ex.C-12, copy of application to SDO BSNL Ex.C-13, photocopy of receipt given by BSNL Official Ex.C-14, copy of payment advice dated 04.01.2016 Ex.C-15, copy of cheque dated 05.01.2016 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Senior Telecom Assistant, Ex.OP-1/A, photocopies of documents i.e. Ex.OP- 1 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the OP vehemently argued that the OP on 28.8.2014 had refunded the security amount of Rs.318/- vide cheque No.826389, as is evident from the copy of dispatch register Ex.OP-6, but the complainant did not presented the said cheque for clearance. However, OP as a good will gesture again issued cheque No.655024 dated 5.1.2016 for Rs.318, but the same was also not encashed.  He further argued that on deposit of telephone set by complainant the OP has paid Rs.200/- vide cheque No.665771 dated 28.1.2016 Ex.OP-7, since the complainant refused to accept the letter containing said cheque, the postal authority returned the said letter. Thus, the OP is not deficient in providing services and the complainant has no occasion to file the present complaint against the OP and prayed that same be dismissed with costs.  On the contrary the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has never received any cheque from the OP as alleged by it.  No doubt the OP has placed on record the copy of the dispatch register to show that it had sent a cheque No. 836389 dated 8.10.2014 to the complainant but has not placed on record any receipt vide which it sent the said cheque to the complainant. The complainant has made a request to disconnect his telephone connection and refund of the security amount in the year 2014, whereas the OP has refunded the security amount of Rs.318/- instead of Rs.1000/- during the pendency of the instant complaint vide cheque dated 05.01.2016, after a long delay, therefore, he is certainly not only entitled to get remaining amount but also entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses. He further submitted that the complainant has not encashed the cheque dated 05.01.2016 for the reason that the matter is subjudice before this Forum.

          From the demand note Ex.C-12, it is evident that the complainant had paid Rs.1000/- to the OP for installation of telephone phone in question.  In the said document it is nowhere mention that the said amount of Rs.1000/- as security.  OP admitted the factum of receipt of Rs.1000/- but has stated that it had taken Rs.600/- as security.  A sum of Rs.318/- was sent to the complainant through cheque after adjustment of Rs.82/- and telephone instrument cost of Rs.200/- from the total security of Rs.600/-.  This fact has not been rebutted by the complainant, thus we do not hesitate to conclude the complainant was entitled for refund of Rs.318/- and not Rs.1000/- as prayed for in the complaint. The complainant had filed the instant complaint on 18.12.2015 against the OP, seeking refund of the security amount due from it against the telephone connection, which had already been disconnected by the OP in the year 2014. No doubt the OP has alleged that it had refunded the security amount to the complainant in the year 2014 vide cheque No.836389 dated 08.10.2014  and to corroborate this fact had placed on record the copy of the dispatch register Ex.OP-6 but has not placed on record any receipt,  vide which it had sent the said cheque to the complainant. Thus, in absence thereof, it cannot be said that the OP has actually sent the cheque to the complainant. Thus, the plea of the OP that it had refunded the security amount to the complainant in the year 2014 is not tenable.  This fact cannot be denied that the OP has refunded the security amount of Rs.318/-  to the complainant vide cheque No.655024 dated 05.01.2016. Since, the OP has refunded the due security amount to the complainant after much delay that too, after filing of the complaint by the complainant. Thus, it can easily be concluded that the OP is deficient in providing services and is liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses. However, as a matter of fact, the cheque dated 05.01.2016 Ex.C16/OP-5,  issued by the OP for the refund of the security amount of Rs.318/- has not been encashed by the complainant and even the cheque dated 28.01.2016 Ex.OP-7 of Rs.200/- has also been returned back by the complainant, may be because of pendency of this complaint and validity of both the aforesaid cheques have already been elapsed, therefore, the OP shall issue a fresh cheque for the said amount.

7.        In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and we direct the OP in the following manner:-

i)       To issue fresh cheque of Rs.318/- in favour of the complainant, towards refund of the security amount.

ii)      To issue fresh cheque of Rs.200/- in favour of the complainant, towards telephone instrument  

iii)     To pay Rs.1500/- as compensation.

iv)     To pay Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses

 

                   The OP is further directed to comply with the above said directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.    

                   The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 28.06.2016                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER