Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Sanjeev Sharma has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant was having one telephone connection bearing No.0183-2587326 issued by Opposite Party No.1 in the year 1996. At the time of issuing connection, the Opposite Parties  took Rs.3000/- as security from the complainant. On 7.3.2016 the complainant applied for disconnection of said connection in department of Opposite Parties  which was disconnected by the Opposite Parties  on 5.4.2016, but however, the said connection was not disconnected immediately. On 3.4.2016, the Opposite Parties  issued bill of Rs.773.11 paisa to complainant, which the complainant paid on 21.4.2016 and the Opposite Party had collected Rs.780/- against payment of Rs.773.11 paisa. On 21.4.2016, the complainant demanded from Opposite Parties  the security deposit of Rs.3000/- which the complainant had paid since back in the year 1996 and also demanded Rs.7/- charged in excess from the complainant, but the Opposite Party told the complainant to deposit the telephone set first then they will refund the security deposit  as well as amount received in excess.  Immediately on 23.4.2016 the complainant deposited telephone set in the office of Opposite Parties , but Opposite Parties did not refund the security amount as well as  excess amount of Rs.7/-. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties  be directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- as security and Rs.7/- charged in excess and Rs.25,000/- as  compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct  in filing the present complaint, which is not legally maintainable in this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the telephone in connection had been working in the name of complainant since 29.3.1996 after the deposition  of the sum of Rs.3000/- by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that a sum of Rs.3,000/- comprised of an amount of Rs.1650/- as security deposit, Rs.800/- as installation charges and the balance amount of Rs.550/- as  rent in advance to be adjusted in the forthcoming bill. Thus the sum of Rs.1650/- is the amount of the security deposit  lying at the credit of the complainant as is being depicted on the left side of the invoice dated 3.4.2016 for Rs.772.89 paisa of telephone No.0183-2587326 and not Rs.3000/- as is being claimed by the complainant in the present complaint.  It is admitted that the telephone connection of the complainant had been inactivated on 7.4.2016 as per the office record. Opposite Party issued invoice dated 3.4.2016 for Rs.772.89 paisa which comprised of previous unpaid balance of Rs.606.78 paisa, the payment of Rs.607.00 paisa on 23.2.2016, current charges of Rs.773.11 paisa (out of which Rs.440/- has been charged  as rent for the period from 1.2.2016 to 31.3.2016, usage charges of Rs.349.20 paisa for the same period of time, a discount of Rs.114/- out of Rs.349.20 paisa, and service tax of Rs.97.91 paisa. Thus, a net amount of Rs.772.89 paisa was chargeable against the invoice dated 3.4.2016 from the complainant, who deposited he sum of Rs.780/- on 21.4.2016 with Opposite Party. Thus, Rs.7.11 paisa had been paid in excess by the complainant with regard to invoice dated 3.4.2016.  The amount of Rs.291.59 paisa had also fallen due from the complainant for the period from 1.4.2016 to 5.4.2016. Thus, the amount of Rs.1365.52 paisa has been calculated as  refunable to the complainant after deduction of the payable dues of Rs.291.59 paisa from the amount of Rs.1651.11 paisa lying at the credit  of the complainant. The refund amount of Rs.1365.52 paisa has been issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant vide cheque No.23748 dated 24.11.2016 by the Account Officer (Claims) of the office of Opposite Party as per the office records. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation amount in the present complaint.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Alok Kumar Kaul Ex.Op1,2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/3  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that despite best efforts, the Opposite Party did not refund the security amount of Rs.3000/- to the complainant and as such, the complainant was compelled to file the instant complaint by hiring advocate.  On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that a sum of Rs.3,000/- comprised of an amount of Rs.1650/- as security deposit, Rs.800/- as installation charges and the balance amount of Rs.550/- as  rent in advance to be adjusted in the forthcoming bill. Thus the sum of Rs.1650/- is the amount of the security deposit  lying at the credit of the complainant as is being depicted on the left side of the invoice dated 3.4.2016 for Rs.772.89 paisa of telephone No.0183-2587326 and not Rs.3000/- as is being claimed by the complainant in the present complaint.  It is admitted that the telephone connection of the complainant had been inactivated on 7.4.2016 as per the office record. Opposite Party issued invoice dated 3.4.2016 for Rs.772.89 paisa which comprised of previous unpaid balance of Rs.606.78 paisa, the payment of Rs.607.00 paisa on 23.2.2016, current charges of Rs.773.11 paisa (out of which Rs.440/- has been charged  as rent for the period from 1.2.2016 to 31.3.2016, usage charges of Rs.349.20 paisa for the same period of time, a discount of Rs.114/- out of Rs.349.20 paisa, and service tax of Rs.97.91 paisa. Thus, a net amount of Rs.772.89 paisa was chargeable against the invoice dated 3.4.2016 from the complainant, who deposited he sum of Rs.780/- on 21.4.2016 with Opposite Party. Thus, Rs.7.11 paisa had been paid in excess by the complainant with regard to invoice dated 3.4.2016.  The amount of Rs.291.59 paisa had also fallen due from the complainant for the period from 1.4.2016 to 5.4.2016. Thus, the amount of Rs.1365.52 paisa has been calculated as  refundable to the complainant after deduction of the payable dues of Rs.291.59 paisa from the amount of Rs.1651.11 paisa lying at the credit  of the complainant. The refund amount of Rs.1365.52 paisa has been issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant vide cheque No.23748 dated 24.11.2016 by the Account Officer (Claims) of the office of Opposite Party as per the office records. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation amount in the present complaint. 

7.       Admittedly, the complainant has filed this complaint on 1.11.2016 before this Forum when he left with no alternative for getting the refund of the security amount from the Opposite Party and went piller to post for the redressal of his grievance. It is also not disputed that after calculating all the debit and credit entries, the amount of Rs.291.59 paisa had also fallen due from the complainant for the period from 1.4.2016 to 5.4.2016. Thus, the amount of Rs.1365.52 paisa has been calculated as  refundable to the complainant after deduction of the payable dues of Rs.291.59 paisa from the amount of Rs.1651.11 paisa lying at the credit  of the complainant. The refund amount of Rs.1365.52 paisa has been issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant vide cheque No.23748 dated 24.11.2016 by the Account Officer (Claims) of the office of Opposite Party as per the office records. But however, though the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Party for the refund of the security amount and he was compelled to file this complaint by hiring advocate and ultimately, during the pendancy of the present complaint, the  Opposite Party issued to the complainant a cheque No.23748 dated 24.11.2016 by the Account Officer (Claims) of the amount of Rs.1365.52 paisa. The act and conduct of the officials of the Opposite Party shows that before the filing of the present complaint, the complainant went pillar to post for the refund of the security amount, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant ad did not issue the refund amount to the complainant. Hence, in this way, the Opposite Parties  are definitely liable to pay compensation to the complainant which we assessed at Rs.3000/-. Opposite Parties  are also burdened with costs of Rs.2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum