Haryana

Panchkula

CC/392/2020

MRS.VIJAY AWAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL SAHNI.

28 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	392 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	18.12.2020
Date of Decision	:	28.11.2022

 

 

Mrs. Vijay Awal w/o Sh. M.P.Awal, aged 70 years, r/o H.No.451, Sector-25, Panchkula, Tehsil & District Panchkula.

                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through its Genera Manager/Authorised Representative/concnered SDO, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana-134114.

2.     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., through its M.D/Chairman/Authorised Representative/JE at village Bana, Sector-25 Panchkula.

3.     RS Pandey Store Keeper(Employee) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Vishal Sahni, Advocate, for the complainant.

                        Sh. Ram Kumar, Authorised representative of Ops No.1                    to 3.    

                       

                                        ORDER

 

(Satpal, President)

1.              The brief facts of the present complaint are that  the complainant was having a telephone connection bearing account  number 1013459469 and had surrender the same vide store slip no.208 dated 24.12.2018 by depositing her phone set, which was duly received by the OP No.3. Notwithstanding it is submitted that application for disconnection was given on 20.12.2018 and instrument i.e. phone set was deposited on 21.12.2018 and the OP no.3 issued receipt no.208 dated 24.12.2018. Thereafter, in the month of March 2019 the complainant came to know about one bill of Rs.311.32 as raised by Ops vide invoice no.NDCHR0004598389 for the billing period w.e.f. 01.02.2019 to 20.03.2019, further mentioning total balance amount of security due to the complainant. He contacted to OPs many times for refund of balance but of no avail. It is further alleged that more than one and a half years of disconnection and deposit of phone set, the Ops are neither refunding balance amount i.e. Rs.1688.68 nor explaining the reasons for withholding of outstanding amount of security after deduction of last bill of Rs.311.32. Due to act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections. It is stated that the present complaint is infractuous since the claimed amount had been already disbursed vide cheque no.074571 dated 21.10.2020 as per the office record. It is stated that in the event of any dispute, the matter will be referred to the sole Arbitrator appointed by the nominated Authority in BSNL and will be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or enactment there of or any rules made thereof, customer will have no objection any such appointment that Arbitrator, so appointed, is employee of the BSNL. However, the claim has been settled and the amount was refunded vide cheque no.074571 dated 21.10.2020 as per information provided by the Account Section Panchkula & Chd. Which was approved vide refund order RE0007128725. On merits, it is stated that the bill was raised for the period of December 2018 prior to disconnection and for the services availed by the subscriber. It is stated that balance security amount after deduction of bill of Rs.311.32 was for Rs.1,688/- & the same had been disbursed/refunded to the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 & C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the Authorised representative for Ops No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit Annexure R/A along with documents Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant has placed on record the photocopy of acknowledgment wherein she had received the cheque amounting to Rs.1,688/- subject to the decision of the present complaint. The acknowledgment is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ for the adjudication of the controversy in a proper and fair manner.

4.             We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the complainant and Ops No. 1 to 3 and gone through the entire record available on file including written submissions filed by OPs, carefully and minutely.

5.             Admittedly, during the pendency of the present complaint, the main grievance of the complainant qua the refund of Rs.1688.68, out of the deposited amount of Rs.2,000/- as security with OP No.1, pertaining to telephone connection no.1013459469, has already been redressed by OPs No.1 & 2  by way of refunding the said amount to her vide cheque dated 27.01.2022(Annexure R-1). As per Mark ‘A’, the said cheque dated 27.01.2022 was received by the complainant on 29.01.2022 subject to the decision of the present complaint.  During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has admitted that the said cheque has been got encashed by the complainant and now there is no grievance of the complainant qua the refund of security amount. However, the learned counsel has contended that the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for their delayed and deficient services rendered by them to the complainant causing thereby mental agony and harassment etc. to the complainant.

6.             On the other hand, the authorized representative on behalf of the OPs No.1 to 3, reiterating the averments made in the written submissions placed on record on 24.03.2021, stated that there was no deficiency on the part of the OPs as a cheque dated 21.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.1,688/- was sent, which has got mis-placed somewhere during transit. The authorized representative further, contended that the balance amount of security i.e. Rs.1688.68 has already been refunded to the complainant; so complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.             Admittedly, the telephone connection in question was disconnected on 24.12.2018 and the telephone connection related apparatus was deposited with OP on 24.12.2018 as per Annexure C-1. As per letter dated 05.02.2021, written by the Account Officer(TRA), Panchkula O/o Pr.G.M.T.Chandigarh, Telephone Exchange, Sector-5, Panchkula to SDE(Phone-1) BSNL, Panchkula, the refund of Rs.1,688/- was approved on 27.03.2019 vide refund no. RE0007128275. The delay and deficient services on the part of the OPs is evident from the fact that the refund cheque was sent to the complainant, which was allegedly misplaced, on 21.10.2020 i.e. after a delay of more than one and a half year. Further, the OPs have been found negligent and deficient while not verifying and cross checking their account-sheet/ledger after  filing of the complaint qua the non refund of the security amount, therefore, the delay occurred on the part of the OPs in refunding the security amount was neither fair nor justified. As such, the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, the present complaint is partly allowed and the Ops No.1 & 2 are directed to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges. Since the Op no.3 is merely a store keeper and had no concern with the refund of the security amount to the complainant, so the complaint is dismissed qua OP No.3.

8.             The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced: 28.11.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

                Member                     Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

   Satpal

  President