Date of Filing: 28.03.2014 Date of Final Order: 25.09.2014
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.
Sri Kishorilal Saha a senior citizen has filed the instant case U/S 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the Opposite Parties praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps for refund of security money in connection with his Land Line Telephone, compensation amount, cost of litigation etc. as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The fact of the case as enumerated in the record is that, the Complainant had one Land Line Telephone Connection bearing Telephone No. 03582-227041 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam ltd. for his domestic use only. At the time of taking the said connection the Complainant had to deposit Rs. 2,000/- as security money vide receipt No.54 dated 04.12.97. vide Demand Notice No. D/N-1181/Adv-Dept/CR dated 04/12/97. The complainant lastly paid the entire outstanding dues vide bill. No.91729221 dated 08.09.2012 and after payment of all outstanding dues, the O.P. No.3, the Account Officer (TRA) gave one certificate to him with the effect that there are no outstanding dues of the Complainant against the said Telephone. Due to financial crisis the Complainant intended to disconnect his telephone connection and thus surrender the telephone set with all original documents and apparatus on 27.09.2012 and the Junior Telecom Officer issued a receipt in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant also submitted an application addressed to the Accounts Officer (TRA), the O.P. No.3 to refund the security money but the O.P. did not return the same. The Complainant thereafter submitted application two times for getting the same but with no effect. The Complainant is entitled to get the said money but the O.Ps by adopting unfair Trade Practice wanted to deprive the Complainant for which this Complaint is filed for seeking proper justice and redress with relief.
It appears that the Complainant has filed the present case against five Opposite Parties but on perusal the record this Forum is in the view to struck off the name of the O.P. No.2 & 5. Despite receiving notice none appear on behalf of the O.P. Nos.1 & 4 hence the case proceeded Ex-parte against the said O.Ps. The O.P. No.3 is the only who contested the case by filing Written Version.
The O.P No.3 by filing W/V contesting the case contending inter-alia that the case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties also has no cause of action. By admitting the fact of Land Line Connection and depositing of Rs. 2,000/- this O.P contended that the said Rs. 2,000/- was not the security money. Rs. 2,000/- has been received by this O.P. as Registration Fees including other charges and amongst this amount the security deposited is Rs. 1,440/- is the annual rental i.e. Rs. 1,440/-. The Complainant himself surrendered the telephone and in no way he harassed by the Opposite Parties. This O.P. contended that as per application of the Complainant the line was disconnected on 29.09.2012 and the date of sanction memo issued on 06.08.2013 finally cheque issued on 05.05.2014 amounting to Rs. 1440/-. As per decision of T.R.A.I. Vide No. 2-4/2002/BSNL(TR) dated 12.09.2013, a time frame of 60 days within which the service provider shall offer refund of security deposited after adjustment of dues if any, from the subscriber. The authority shall pay interest @ 10% p.a. for the delayed period beyond 60 days.
The Opposite party No. 3 concluded its version that the O.Ps have no deficiency in service as such this complainant is not entitled to get any claim and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following moot points necessarily came up for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and is liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, and perused the documents of the complainant and other materials on record and heard the argument advanced by the agent of the complainant at a length. Also perused the Evidence on affidavit of the Complainant.
Point No.1.
The Complainant had a land line telephones connection of O.Ps as such he is the consumer of the O.P. Thus, the relation of the Complainant with the O.P. as came to be existed from the materials made available in the record we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is the Consumer of the O.Ps and thus, this case is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
Point No.2.
The office of the Opposite Party is within this district and also this complaint valued at Rs. 62,000/- i.e. within prescribed limit as per C.P. Act, 1986 for which there is no dispute in the point of territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken together for convenience of discussion. On perusal the documents made available in the record it appears that the Complainant surrendered his Land Line Telephone with accessories on 27.09.2012 also submitted an application to the O.P. No. 3 for refund of security money of Rs. 2,000/-against the said telephone connection. The Opposite Party No. 3 also stated in their W/V that Rs. 2,000/- was received by the Opposite Party from the Complainant on 22.10.1997. It also appears from the Demand Note (Annexure 1) filed by the Complainant that the said Rs. 2,000 was received by the Telecom. Dept. as Registration Fees. The relevant portion of the Demand Note also reveals the same. We do not find any single scrap of papers to show that the Complainant deposited Rs. 2,000/- as security money to the O.P. Besides, the O.P in their W/V admitted that there is Rs. 1,440/- as security money in connection with that Telephone Line amongst Rs. 2,000/- as received by the O.P.
It is pertinent to mention that in the instant case only O.P. No. 3 appeared, filed W/V but not present on the date fixed for argument. The O.P. No. 1&2 also did not appear before this Forum despite receiving the notice as such the case was heard in Ex-parte against the O.P. No. 1&2 also in absence of O.P. No. 3.
It also appears that after getting representation from the Complainant the O.P No.3 send a cheque in favour of the Complainant vide No. 477927 dated 05.05.2014 of Rs. 1,440/- to show their bonafideness. The Complainant raised objection and did not receive the same.
In this juncture it is also pertinent to mention that after filing this case by the Complainant and getting notice from this Forum the O.P. send the cheque to the Complainant in connection of the security amount as deposited by the Complainant on 22.10.1997. Thus, it appears that the O.Ps have no intention to squeeze the said amount. Besides the O.P. has failed to pay the interest as per “TRAI’s” decision vide letter No. 2-4/2002- BSNL (TR) dated 12.09.2003 (Annexure- 7) on refund of security deposit after disconnection of Telephone where in it is crystal clear that “a time frame of 60 (sixty) days within which the service providers shall effect refund of the security deposit after adjustment of dues, if any, from the subscribers. The authority has also decided that the service providers shall pay an interest @10% per annum for the delayed period beyond 60 days.
The O.P admitted that the date of disconnection was 29.09.2012 and the date of sanction memo issued on 06.08.2013, finally Cheque issued on 05.05. 2014 amounting to Rs. 1,440/-. For the sake of argument and on perusal the Annexure 1-6, if we considered that the O.P did not return the amount within 60 days for their departmental hazards then how they issued the cheque only of Rs. 1,440/- without interest even after elapsing 9 months from the date of sanction? The O.Ps have to pay the interest from the month of August 2013.
In the light of the foregoing discussion and based on materials to its entirety we are convinced to hold that the O.Ps failed to pay the Security Amount to the Complainant as per their rules and thus the deficiency in service cannot be ruled out against the O.Ps.
As the all points are answered in affirmative, the Complainant is entitled to get relief but in part.
Thus, the complaint succeeds.
Hence
it is ordered that,
the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. No.3 and in Ex-parte against O.P. No 1 & 2 with cost of Rs. 500/-.
The O.Ps are hereby directed to pay the Complainant jointly and/ or severally the accrued interest @10% p.a. on Rs. 1,440/- from August 2013 as per the guideline of TRAI’s decision.
The O.Ps are also directed to issue a fresh cheque in lieu of the Issued Cheque dated 05.05.14 in favour of Kishorilal Saha and further directed to comply with the order within 45 days from this date of order, failure of which to pay @ Rs. 10/- for each days delay, by depositing the accrued amount if any in this regard, in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal after the expiry of the stipulated period above.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
