BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.59 of 2018
Date of Institution : 9.2.2018
Date of decision : 30.1.2019
Mohinder Paul Chugh aged about 58 years son of Shri Gangu Ram, resident of 91, New Housing Board Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- B.S.N.L, through S.D.O. Phone, Sirsa.
- D.G.M., B.S.N.L., G.M.T.D., Hisar.
- Divisional Engineer Phone (General), B.S.N.L., Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………..PRESIDENT.
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL…… MEMBER
Present: Sh. K.S. Gill, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Bishnoi, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER:-
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant had applied for getting telephone connection to the opposite parties vide application dated 17.6.1996 (AD No.068729 dated 22.6.1996), Demand Regn. No.6988 dated 21.6.1996, as per demand note No.68729 dated 30.5.1996. On the application of complainant, telephone connection No.27328 (later on converted into 247328) was allotted to the complainant and he was paying bills to the ops department regularly without any fault on his part. It is further averred that complainant deposited Rs.3,000/- as security to the ops which was refundable as per the terms and conditions of the ops. That in the month of September, 2016 the complainant has surrendered the above said telephone connection to the op-Nigam after payment of all dues and he was assured by the op-Nigam to refund amount of security within two months of its surrenders but now after elapsing of more than 15 months, the ops have not refunded the above said amount to the complainant. The complainant has moved so many applications to the op-Nigam and visited the op-Nigam hundreds of time but all the times the ops have been postponing the matter with one pretext or the other. Ultimately the complainant got served a legal notice dated 19.12.2017 to the ops with the request to refund the amount of security alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 2% per month from due date till its final realization. Even thereafter the complainant visited the office of ops on many occasions but all in vain and ultimately the ops have finally refused to admit the claim of complainant and also refused to refund the amount of security to the complainant without any reason. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted the complainant has deposited only a sum of Rs.2000/- as security. After the surrender of the telephone connection by the complainant, the amount of security was demanded by him from the answering ops and continuation of the same, the op no.1 issued two different cheques bearings Nos. 028112 and 28113 dated 27.2.2018 amount to Rs.1000/- each drawn on Union Bank of India. It is further submitted that it is necessary to mention here that at the time of issuance of these cheques, the name of complainant has been wrongly written over the said cheques as Mohinder Paul Singh instead of Mohinder Paul Chugh on account of which the complainant returned the aforesaid cheques to the answering ops for want of issuance of fresh cheques with correct name of complainant. As the process in issuance of fresh cheques was to be completed within about 20 days but the complainant filed the present complaint even before issuance of the fresh cheques. In this manner, the issuance of cheques in favour of complainant clearly depicts the willingness of the ops to make payment of the amount of security. Now fresh cheque of Rs.2000/- bearing No.028236 dated 19.3.2018 with correct name of complainant has already been prepared and received by the complainant even before the Forum. In this manner the claim of complainant has already been satisfied by the ops but inspite of it, the complainant started claiming the interest over the same and in order to avoid the litigation, the ops further issued a cheque bearing No.029756 dated 31.5.2018 of Rs.285/- qua interest but the complainant for the reasons best known to him refused to accept the same. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, application for refund of security Ex.C2, reminders of applications Ex.C3 to Ex.C7 and copy of legal notice Ex.C8, postal receipts Ex.C9 to Ex.C11, telephone bill Ex.C12 and copy of invoice Ex.C13. On the other hand, ops produced payment advice Ex.R1, subscriber’s record card Ex.R2 and payment advice Ex.R3 and Ex.R4.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of complainant that complainant was having a telephone connection from ops and had deposited security while availing telephone connection. Further in the month of September, 2016 complainant had surrendered the above said telephone connection to the ops after payment of all dues and made number of requests for the refund of security of Rs.3000/- but however the ops did not pay same and continued to avoid payment and harassed him. The ops paid amount of Rs.2,000/- as refund of security only during the pendency of the present complaint and did not pay the interest amount and compensation for pain and suffering. Ld. counsel for complainant has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Telecommunication, BSNL & anr. Versus Rama Rani, 2012 (2) CPJ 58.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has contended that ops never refused to pay or refund amount of security of Rs.2000/-. After surrender of telephone connection, amount of security was demanded by complainant and in continuation of that op no.1 had issued two different cheques No.028112 and 028113 dated 27.2.2018 amounting to Rs.1000/- each but inadvertently name of complainant had been wrongly written over the said cheques as Mohinder Paul Singh instead of Mohinder Paul Chughg and thereafter a fresh cheque was handed over to the complainant on 19.3.2018 with correct name. The op further issued a cheque bearing No.029756 dated 31.5.2018 of Rs.285/- on account of interest but complainant refused the same due to the reason best known to him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of ops.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The perusal of the record reveals that it is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant was holding a telephone connection from the ops and had paid Rs.2000/- as security. After surrender of the telephone connection in the month of September, 2016 complainant made demand of refund of the amount of security. The complainant has placed on record certain applications for refund of the security from Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and thereafter legal notice Ex.C8 was served upon ops but however, ops did not make refund of the amount of security to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved the complainant filed the present complaint on 9.2.2018 and thereafter as per version of ops they issued two cheques of refund of security amount on 27.2.2018. But however same were not received by complainant as name of complainant had been wrongly mentioned as Mohinder Paul Singh.
9. The perusal of the written statement of ops reveals that ops have categorically conceded to the allegation of complainant that refund was not given and cheque was issued on 27.2.2018 with wrong name of complainant though telephone connection was surrendered in the month of September, 2016 and this amount of refund was paid by ops with correct name of complainant on 19.3.2018 during the pendency of the present complaint. Even interest amount has not been paid by the ops to the complainant qua this period. Non refund of this amount of security by ops due to reason best known to the officials of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops. Rather it appears from written statement and evidence of ops that officials of ops were dealing in very casual manner while making refund of the security amount which clearly amounts to lapses and negligence on the part of officials of ops and complainant deserves to be compensated.
10. In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to make payment of Rs.2000/- as compensation including interest of the security amount and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the total amount of Rs.3000/- from the date of order till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:30.1.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
