Dt. of filing – 05/07/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 25/06/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely 1) Ashok Kumar Mukherjee under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties namely 1) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kolkata 2) PRO/Accounts Officer, BSNL & 3) Commercial Officer, South Calcutta Telephones alleging deficiency in rendering service on their part.
Case of the Complainant in short is that on deposit of sum of Rs.3,000/- on 07/06/1999 Opposite Party No.3 installed a land telephone (No.2447-3703) at the residence of the Complainant and connection was given. Complainant had regularly paying bill but on 11/9/2017 he surrendered the said land phone. On 11/9/2017 thus he sent a letter to Opposite Party No.2 for refund of his security deposit of Rs.3,000/-. But inspite of waiting for 4 months the said amount was not refunded. So he sent a letter dated 17/1/2018 to the Opposite Parties requesting to release the security deposit at earliest but as no heed was paid he again sent reminder on 21/5/2018. But as the payment was not made, the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant for directing the Opposite Parties to refund the security deposit of Rs.3,000/- , to pay interest @12% p.a. on the said sum and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, copy of the letters sent to the Opposite Parties at different times.
Opposite Parties have contested the case by filing written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition against them contending inter alia that an amount of Rs.2,249/- after adjustment of Rs.31/- through NEFT has already been paid to the Complainant. But the Complainant has suppressed the said fact. So as there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, they have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
During the course of the evidence both parties adduced their respective evidence followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately argument has been advanced and both the parties have also filed brief notes of argument.
So the following points require determination:-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 & 2
Both these points are taken up together for a comprehensive discussion in order to avoid repetition.
It is an admitted fact that a land phone was installed in the house of the Complainant in the year 1999 and he has paid Rs.3,000/-. However, according to Complainant Rs.3,000/- was security deposit whereas according to Opposite Parties it was application money for new connection.
It is stated by the Opposite Parties that Rs.720/- was the amount towards telephonic instruments, phone receiver installation charge and rest of Rs.2,249/- has been paid to the Complainant adjusting Rs.31/- towards NEFT.
During the argument it is admitted by the Complainant that Rs.2,249/- has been received by him. It also appears from the evidence that the Complainant has received the sum of Rs.2,249/- . It is also not disputed that the rest of the amount was towards installation charge. Complainant at this stage has only prayed for interest towards such sum for its nonpayment in time. It appears that the payment of Rs.2,249/- was made on 16/7/2018. Complainant surrendered the phone on 11/9/2017 and the present complaint has been filed on 5/7/2018. So apparently the payment has been made by the Opposite Parties after filing of the complaint by the Complainant.
Complainant has filed copy of the letters sent by him dated 11/9/2017, 17/1/2018 and copy of letter dated 21/5/2018. So apparently inspite of sending of letters and reminder thereon, Opposite Parties did not make payment for about 10 months. So as there has been delay in payment of the amount on the part of the Opposite Parties inspite of receiving the letters, there has been deficiency on their part and thus liable to pay interest on the said sum of Rs.2,249/- for 10 months. In this context, it may be mentioned here that Complainant has filed relevant provision of the interest act wherefrom it appears that under section 4 towards the deposit of security the interest will be allowed. Opposite Parties in question no.9 of the questionnaire filed by them, have categorically described Rs.2,280/- as security deposit. If that be so then on consideration of provision under Interest Act, Complainant is entitled to Rs.224.90 (making round figure Rs.225/) towards the interest for the said 10 months @ 12% p.a as prayed. However, Complainant though had received the sum of Rs.2,249/- immediately after filing of case but this fact came forward before this Forum only after the written version was filed by the Opposite Parties. So in the given situation of this case we do not intend to pass any order as to compensation. But towards litigation cost, as complainant has been compelled to file this case, he is entitled to Rs.6,000/- as litigation cost. It may be mentioned here that the Complainant in this case is an advocate himself so litigation cost of Rs.6,000/- will be justified.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/409/2018 is allowed on contest. Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.225/- towards interest and Rs.6,000/- as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order failing which entire sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a till realization.
