Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/83

Joginder Kumar Pasricha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Dheeraj Pasricha, Adv.

13 Jan 2016

ORDER

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Joginder Kumar Pasricha 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 return him the security amount of Rs.2000/-,

ii)      To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of unnecessary harassment caused to him including litigation expenses.

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got installed a landline telephone connection at his house bearing No. 01881-220959 on 11.7.2014. He had been paying the bills issued by the O.P. from time to time and nothing was/is due from him against the said connection.  As he did not need the services of the O.P., therefore, he filed an application dated 24.11.2014 with the O.P. for disconnection of the said telephone connection. Accordingly, the O.P. disconnected the said connection on the same day and as per instructions of its officials, he returned the instrument to the O.P. and it was told to him that the security amount of Rs.2000/- would be returned within 2-3 days.  However, inspite of his repeated requests & lapse of nine months period, the O.P. had not refunded the security amount and put off the matter on one pretext or the other. He had also issued a legal notice dated 27.7.2015 to it, but even to the said notice, no response was given by it. The O.P. has, thus, committed deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                 On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written version in the shape of affidavit of Sh. Talwinder Singh, Divisional Engineer Legal, admitting therein that the complainant had got installed the telephone connection bearing No. 01881-220959 in his house and lateron, applied for its disconnection. It is stated that the said connection was disconnected and the Section concerned sent the case of refund of security amount to the Accounts Office on 1.12.2014. The last bill of the said connection was generated for Rs.162.40 on dated 04.12.2014 for the period from 01.11.2014 to 30.11.2014, which was payable uptil 24.12.2014. Again another bill was issued on 04.01.2015 for the period from 01.12.2014 till the date of disconnection i.e. 05.12.2014, which also remained unpaid by the complainant. Therefore, the said bills were to be adjusted by the system in the security refund. It is further stated that a new system ERP (Enterprise Resource Programme) was commissioned on 01.09.2014, as per which, all the refunds for disconnected telephones of Punjab Circle have been centralized at Chandigarh. The refund of the security amount was given to the complainant as per the said new ERP system and there was neither any delay in refund of the same on the part of the O.P. nor it has committed any deficiency in service. The security amount of Rs.2000/-, which was refunded by the O.P. vide cheque No.586759 dated 9.9.2014, has already been received 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.

 

4.                 On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1 and photocopies of documents Ex. C2 to Ex. C9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Talwinder Singh, Divisional Engineer, Ex. OP-1, photocopy of circular of ERP, Ex. OP- 2 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 of the learned counsel for the O.P. vehemently argued that the O.P. had already refunded the security amount of Rs.2000/- to the complainant through cheque dated 9.9.2015, which has been received by him. Since, his grievance has already been redressed, therefore, the instant complaint may be dismissed.

 

7.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had requested the O.P. to disconnect his telephone connection & refund the security amount vide his application dated 24.11.2014, whereas it has refunded the security amount of Rs.2000/- during the pendency of the instant complaint vide cheque dated 9.9.2015 i.e. after the lapse of 9 months & 16 days. Since the O.P. has refunded the security amount only on filing of this case, therefore, he is certainly entitled for compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him, along with litigation expenses. He further submitted that the complainant has not got encashed the above said cheque for the reason that the matter is sub-judice before this Forum, and 3months validity period of the said cheque has already been elapsed, accordingly, fresh directions in that regard may also be issued to the O.P.

 

8.                 The complainant had filed the instant complaint on 3.09.2015, against the O.P., seeking refund of the security amount of Rs.2000/- due from it against the telephone connection, which had already been disconnected, on his application dated 24.11.2014. Admittedly, the O.P. has refunded the security amount of Rs.2000/- vide cheque No.586759 dated 9.9.2015(Ex. C7) to the complainant. It may be stated that the O.P. had refunded the said amount of Rs.2000/- after a delay of more than 9 months from the date of filing of application by the complainant to that effect. Even if we consider the plea of the O.P. that the said delay took place due to installation of the new ERP system, even then we find that the delay of more than 9 months was too much. Thus, we do not hesitate to conclude that the O.P. was deficient in providing services and is liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony & physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.  However, as a matter of fact, the said cheque (Ex.C-7) issued by the O.P. for the refund of security amount of Rs.2000/- has not been got encashed by the complainant, may be for want of pendency of this complaint, and its validity period has already elapsed, therefore, the O.P. shall issue a fresh cheque for the said amount. 

 

9.                 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint

and direct the O.P. in the following manner:-

i)  To issue cheque for an amount of Rs.2000/- in favour of

     the complainant, towards refund of the security amount,

     afresh,

 

ii)  To pay Rs.2000/- as compensation,

 

iii)  To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

 

 

                   The O.P. 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: 13.01.2016                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.