Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/404

Swati Sandhir - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

sanjay Vashisht Adv.

06 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 404 dated 22.05.2017.                                                     

                                                  Date of decision: 06.04.2021. 

 

Swati Sandhir d/o. Sh. Anil Sandhir, resident of 2994, HIG Phase-I, Dugri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Chief General Manager, BSNL, Sector 34, Chandigarh.
2. General Manager, BSNL, near Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. INDERJIT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sanjay Vashishta, Advocate.

For OPs.                         :         Sh. Alok Mohindra, Advocate

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that she was a subscriber of OPs vide SIM No.94633-46850. The complainant had taken international roaming for Australia for which she deposited Rs.2,000/- with OP2 in the year 2015. Later on, the complainant shifted to prepaid facility and requested the OPs to refund the security lying with them, but to no avail. Even a legal notice dated 09.02.2017 sent to OPs through registered post failed to evoke a positive response from them. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the security and be also made to pay compensation of Rs.5 Lac for deficiency of service and harassment of the complainant.

2.                Complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as OPs have already made the payment of Rs.2038/-  to the complainant  vide cheque No.894365 dated 04.07.2016. The complainant, however, did not present the cheque in time and failed to get it encashed. The OPs prepared another cheque No.196985 dated 06.07.2017 drawn at Punjab National Bank for Rs.2038/- and handed over the same to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint has become in fructuous. There has been no negligence or deficiency on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 & Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Surinder Kumar, AOS Legal Officer of OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R7 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments submitted by parties and also gone through the record.

6.                In this case, the claim of the complainant is that she was not  refunded the security amount of Rs.2,000/-, which she had deposited for availing international roaming facility for Australia and the same was not refunded to her though she shifted to a prepaid plan. On the contrary, the case of the OPs is that they refunded the amount of Rs.2038/- vide cheque No.894365 dated 14.07.2016, which was not presented for encashment by the complainant. Therefore, there is no lapse or deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. However, in this regard, the OPs have not produced any record that the cheque No.894365 was sent to the complainant. No postal receipt has been placed on the record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cheque bearing No.894365 dated 14.07.2016 was sent to the complainant. However, the OPs have handed over a cheque No.196985 dated 06.07.2017 for Rs.2038/- to the complainant in the court on 10.07.2017 i.e. after the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the payment of Rs.2038/- has already been received by the complainant and this part of the claim has already been satisfied. As regards the compensation for delayed payment, in the considered opinion of this Commission, it would be appropriate if the complainant is awarded a composite compensation of Rs.2,000/-.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed to the extent that the OPs shall pay a composite compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only)  to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Inderjit)                                           (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.04.2021.

Gobind Ram.