IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 250/06 DATED 14-12-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt.L.Chandra KumariW/o mahadevegowda, Nayakanahundi, Kolagala Post, Hampapura Hobli, H.D.Kote Taluk.<br /> (By Sri.Prasanna Murthy, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (E), Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (CHESCOM), H.D.Kote.<br /> 2. The Executive Engineer (E), Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (CHESCOM), Divisional Office, Hunsur.<br /> (By Sri.VAR, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 08-09-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 25-09-2006<br /> Date of order : 14.12.2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 ½ MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> MEMBER<br /> Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member, <br /> <br /> 1. The complainant, an agriculturist, approached the opposite parties for a power supply connection to the pump set for her lands and deposited with them Rs.4800/- on 1.10.2003. Even after six months the opposite parties did not provide power supply and the mango saplings planted in anticipation of getting early power supply withered away one after the other. <br /> 2. The opposite parties told the complainant that the Government had introduced a scheme called Own Your Transformer [OYT hereafter] wherein if a deposit of Rs.25,000/- is made, power supply would be granted immediately. Believing their words, the complainant deposited the said amount in two installments of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on 15.3.2004 and 30.3.2004 respectively. However, power supply was not provided immediately. The complainant learnt that the opposite parties had short listed 160 beneficiaries under the OYT scheme excluding the complainant. On learning about this, she wrote a letter to the opposite parties on 21.4.2004 demanding refund of the money paid by her. Since there was no response a second letter was written on 3.11.2004 and a third letter on 22.4.2005. Finally, on 25.4.2005, the complainant gave a representation to the Managing Director, Chamundeswari Electricity Company, Mysore. Yet, there was no refund.<br /> 3. In the meantime, the Government had introduced a scheme called ‘Akrama Sakrama’ under which the complainant regularized the power connection by paying Rs.14,950/- including penalty of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite parties finally sent a cheque for Rs.22,500/- on 17.4.2006 towards the refund of the money paid by her for securing power under OYT scheme. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have to pay her Rs.7300/- more and also interest on the deposit made by her. She has, also, prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.<br /> <br /> 4. The first opposite party is Assistant Executive Engineer of the power supply company at Heggadadevanakote and the second opposite party is the Executive Engineer at Hunsur. Their defence is that the Government withdrew the OYT scheme and as such power connection could not be given to the complainant. Deposit paid by her towards the OYT scheme was refunded after deducting 10% towards processing charges. But deposit of Rs.4800/- paid initially has not been refunded as the complainant has not submitted refund bill along with the original receipts.<br /> 5. From the above rival contentions, the following points arise for our consideration:<br /> I. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by not refunding the deposit amounts paid by her?<br /> II. Whether the opposite parties prove that they are entitled to retain 10% of the deposit amount as processing charges?<br /> III. What relief or order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:<br /> Point I: In the affirmative<br /> Point II: In the negative<br /> Point III: As per final Order<br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Points I & II:- Most facts averred by the complainant are admitted by the opposite parties. She first applied for a power connection under the general scheme and paid Rs.4800/- on 1.10.2003. Then she applied under the OYT scheme and paid Rs.25,000/- between 15.3.2004 and 30.3.2004. Somewhere in between she obtained illegal power connection and got it regularized under the ‘Akrama Sakrama’ scheme by paying Rs.14,950/-. The opposite parties thus had Rs.29,800/- of the complainant which they should have refunded once the complainant demanded it back. From the documents produced by the complainants it is seen that the demands were on 21.4.2004, 30.4.2004, 3.11.2004, 22.4.2005, 28.10.2005 and 17.4.2006. She has, also, written a letter to the Managing Director of the company on 25.4.2005. The kind of interest shown by the opposite parties to refund the money to the complainant can be gauged from the two letters written by the first opposite party to the second opposite party on 10.11.2004 and 29.10.2005. The letters merely state that necessary steps may be taken to refund the amount paid by the complainant. A third letter dated 22.4.2006 from the first to the second opposite party states that the complainant has objected the refund of Rs.22,500/-. Hence, it has taken almost two years for the opposite parties to execute a refund request and even that has not been done properly. They did not bother to give an explanation to the complainant as to why they were refunding only Rs.22,500/- instead of Rs.29,800/- demanded by her.<br /> 8. It is only before this Forum, the opposite parties have stated that Rs.2500/- [10% of the deposit amount of Rs.25,000/-] was withheld as processing charges From the version of the opposite parties it is seen that the OYT scheme was withdrawn by the Government even before the service was executed. When the service under a scheme not provided question of collecting processing fee does not arise. It was not the complainant who withdrew her application but it was the Government which withdrew the scheme. It defies all rational that processing charges are collected where no service is provided and that too when the scheme itself is withdrawn. <br /> 9. Even with regard to the deposit of Rs.4800/- made by the complainant for securing power connection under the general scheme, it is only before the Forum the opposite parties are saying that they would have processed it if the complainant had given a refund bill along with the original receipts. When the complainant was writing them so many letters, could they not have guided her to return the original receipts? This is plain harassment of the consumer. We have no hesitation in holding that the opposite parties have not only committed deficiency in service but have, also, failed to prove that they are entitled to withhold 10% of the deposit towards processing charges. Hence, we answer the points accordingly.<br /> 10. Since the opposite parties have taken two years to refund the amount, the complainant is entitled to interest on the amount paid by her. Amount of interest has been arrived at Rs.4680/- calculated at 8% p.a reckoned on Rs.29,800/- from 1.5.2004 when the complainant gave the second representation for refund till 17.4.2006 when the opposite parties refunded Rs.22,500/-. Looking at the way the opposite parties have harassed the complainant we feel that it is a fit case to award damages in favour of the complainant. With these observations we proceed to pass the following order<br /> ORDER<br /> A. Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> B. Opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant Rs.11,980/- within two months today failing which the said amount shall carry future interest at 8% p.a thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> <br /> C. The opposite parties shall pay the complainant damages of Rs.3000/- within two months from today failing which the said amount shall carry interest at 10% p.a thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> <br /> D. The opposite parties shall pay the complainant cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> E. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 14th December 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br />