Ranjit Singh Grewal filed a consumer case on 03 Dec 2020 against BSNL in the Fatehgarh Sahib Consumer Court. The case no is CC/41/2020 and the judgment uploaded on 02 Feb 2021.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHGARH SAHIB
Consumer Complaint No.41 of 2020
Dated of Institution : 21.08.2020
Date of Decision : 03.12.2020
Ranjit Singh Grewal aged about 67 years Son of Jagir Singh, resident of House No.38, Ward No.2, Near Aam Khas Bagh, Preet Nagar, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib
…. Complainant
Versus
…Opposite parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President
Shri Inderjit, Member
Present: Sh. Jaskamal Singh Grewal, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.
Sh. Navjot Singh,JTO( Legal) Representative of OPs.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
ORDER
The present order of ours will dispose of the above mentioned complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant ( hereinafter referred as 'CC' for short) against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred as 'OPs' for short). The CC stated that on 25.08.2018 he requested OP No.2 through a written application to disconnect the landline telephone No.01763-222780, which was installed at the residence of the complainant in the year 2003. The CC also requested to refund Rs.2870/- as security amount, which was deposited by him at the time of installation of the above said landline telephone. The OPs after verifying all the dues regarding monthly bills and after receiving the handset along with other accessories, disconnected the telephone service and also promised that the security amount of Rs.2870/- will be released to the complainant through a cheque within 15 days from the date of disconnection of the number. But the OPs failed to refund the security amount to the complainant despite so many requests made by the complainant. The CC alleged that the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and gross negligence on their part.
2. In their written version the OPs stated that the department could not refund the security deposit due to financial crisis and lack of funds. The department had demanded special funds to pay the security refund by writing letter to Circle Office Chandigarh and after receiving the same, an amount of Rs.2645/- has been transferred to CC bank account SBI No.55105801663 on 28.09.2020, after adjusting the outstanding amount of Rs.225/- with regard to telephone bill for the month of August 2018 generated in September 2018. The OPs prayed for dismissal of the present complaint as the OPs has not delayed the payment intentionally.
3. We have heard Ld. counsel for the CC and the representative of OPs and have gone through the record carefully.
4. The CC in support of his complaint has tendered his affidavit, copy of legal notice and various bills etc. The OPs have filed only version and has further stated in their affidavit that an amount of Rs.2645/- stands encashed in the account of the CC on 28.09.2020.
5. Admittedly, the CC had sent a request of disconnection of his BSNL connection on 25.08.2018 and was entitled to security amount from the OPs. The total security amount was Rs.2870/- but an amount of Rs.225/- was deducted by the OPs, allegedly as some previous outstanding charges were pending. It is also proved on file that CC was not immediately paid the security amount, by the OPs and even in their reply, the OPs have alleged that they could not refund the security amount due to financial crisis and lack of funds and ultimately sent the same to the CC on 28.09.2020, after filing of the complaint and even after the serving of the legal notice by the CC. We feel, that no rules or regulations are being shown by the OPs that the delay in refund of the security amount was not within their control or was under any rules of their department. We do not find any logic in the version of the OPs that due to financial crisis and lack of funds the security amount could not be refunded in the account of the CC immediately, rather we feel, that this is purely a case of Red-tapism and carelessness prevailing in the office of the OPs. It is pertinent to mention here that the CC was compelled to send a legal notice and had to engage a lawyer for getting the refund of his security amount. It is also writ large on the file that the CC had to file a complaint before this Consumer Commission for redressal of his grievance under compelling circumstances.
6. In view of our above discussion we feel, that the CC is successful in making out a case of consumer disputes between him and the OPs and as such, he deserves a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-( Rs. Five thousands). The complaint is therefore allowed. OPs are directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the CC within 30 days from the date of receiving certified copy of this order, failing which the CC will be entitled to an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.5,000/- till the amount is paid to him. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:
December 03, 2020
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Inderjit)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.