MRS RAJASHREE AGARWALLA, MEMBER-

             Deficiency in service in respect of non-refund of security deposit amount against the fixed Telephone connection are the allegations arrayed against the Ops.

2.             Complaint in brief reveals that, Complainant to avail a land line Telephone connection deposited Rs. 1000/- dt. 21/11/2003 and Rs. 1000/- on dt. 27/08/2004 and availed a fixed Telephone bearing No. 06727-278595. It is alleged that after installation of the Telephone same remained non-functional for most of the times and complainant being aggrieved surrendered the Telephone on dt. 23/12/2014 and requested to return the security amount. Complainant on dt. 25/5/2015 write a letter to Op-1 to refund the security amount, but Ops did not refund the security amount till-date, which according to Complainant is deficiency in service of Ops, and such action of the Ops caused financial loss and  mental agony. The cause of action of the instant case arose on dt. 23/12/2014,when Complainant surrendered the Telephone and on dt. 25/5/2015, where Complainant issued the letter for refund security deposit. Complaint is filed with prayer that a direction may be given to Ops to refund the security deposit of Rs. 2,000/- along with 13% interest per month from dt. 23/12/2014 to till its payment and compensation of Rs. 8,000/- and cost of litigation be awarded in favour of Complainant.

3.                   On receipt of Notice Op, BSNL appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement denying the allegations and submitting the facts it is stated that an application of the Complainant a new Telephone connection was installed in Complainant’s residence on dt. 3/10/2004. Complainant in order to avail New Telephone connection deposited Rs. 1000/- on dt. 21/11/2003 and again deposited Rs. 1000/- on dt. 12/08/2004 and amount of the total deposited amount of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 680/- was deducted as installation charge and balance Rs. 1320/- kept as security against the Complainant’s Telephone bearing No. 06727-278595. It is also averred that Complainant was availing a Broad bond connection with Rs. 175 plan for month and a total arrear amount of Rs. 3320/- as on dt. 28/06/2011 is pending as outstanding dues as complainant was not paying the dues regularly and after adjustment of security deposit of Rs. 1320/-, Complainant has to pay balance of Rs. 2000/-. Complainant to avoid payment of Rs. 2000/-filed a C.D.Case bearing No. 7/11 before this Honbl’e Forum. Ops in complying the order of the Honbl’e Forum restored the land phone of the complainant on dt. 3/9/2012 with a ‘nil’ security and again the Telephone line was disconnected and Complainant has to pay Rs. 58/- as outstanding amount and in toto the complainant has to pay Rs. 2,058/-. It is further averred that Ops have not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint is filed as false and frivolous ground.

 4.                  Heard the Complainant and Ops on merit, perused the documents filed into the dispute by the parties. The admitted facts of the  case are that Complainant availed a new land line Telephone bearing No. 06727-278595 on deposit of Rs. 2000/-. It is also admitted that the said landline of Complainant surrendered before the authorities and the security deposit amount is not refund till-date inspite of surrender of Telephone.

                          On the reasons of non-refund of security deposit amount Ops plea are that as the complainant was availing a Broad band connection under Rs. 175/- plan and was not paying the dues regularly and after adjustment of security deposit amount of Rs. 1320/-, Complainant has to pay amount Rs. 2000/- towards charges of Broad Band connection and Rs. 58/- as outstanding against dues of the landline connection. During course of hearing Complainant, presented that payment of Broad band charges have already been decided by this Forum in C.C.Case No. 7/2011 on conciliation between Authorized Officer of Op and Complainant, in support, Complainant filed a certified copy of the order sheet bearing order No.14 dt. 26/3/2012 and order No. 15 dt. 25/6/2012. Complainant also filed Xerox copy of letter bearing No. P-1/09-10/dtd/2/2/2010 addressed to the Franchise BSNL NOVA PC, Bhubaneswar cancelling the Broad band service of the Complainant-consumer basing on the letter of one Rajan Kumar Pat, the Authorized Franchise holder of NOUA PC for Kendrapara sub-Division. Now it clear that the Complainant was not enjoying the Broad band service and demand of Rs. 2000/- towards use of Broad band service is not justified or lawful. Further the same  dispute is already raised and disposed of on conciliation by this Forum in C.D.Case No. 7/2011, agitating the same allegation once again is not permissible under law. Considering the refund of security deposit it is an admitted fact that, Complainant had paid Rs. 2000/- for availing NTC out of which Rs.1320/- is kept security amount, Further on conciliation between Complainant and Ops keeping the said security amount Telephone was restored on dt. 3/9/2012 and the said Telephone was surrendered before the authorities on dt. 23/12/2014. On the observation, the Plea of Ops on pending arrear dues Broad band connection is not allowed or accepted by this Forum and Complainant is entitled to get back an amount of Rs. 1320/- which deposited as security amount. Complainant preys this Forum for refund of an amount of Rs. 2000/-, which is kept as security deposit amount. But as per the version of the Ops, out of total deposit of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 680/- is taken as installation charge and balance Rs. 1320/- is kept as security amount, Further the petition filed by Complainant on dt. 25.06/2012 before this Forum in C.D.Case No. 7/2011 reveals that the security deposit amount is Rs. 1320/- basing on the said petition. The Telephone connection was restored in the year 2012. Hence, the security amount is   Rs. 1320/- not Rs. 2000/- as claimed by the Complainant. On demand of Rs. 58/- (Rs. Fifty eighty only) against the outstanding dues against the landline connection of Complainant, we, are of the opinion that the said arrear amount is a meagre amount and the said amount is charged in the bi-monthly bills of the Telephone bills and after closure of the Telephone of the Complainant  on dt. 23/12/2014. Hence, Ops should not insist for collection of a meager amount of Rs. 58/- (Rs. Fifty eighty only) from Complainant-consumer. The acts of the Ops on non-refund of Security deposit and  reagitating a non issue for non-release of security amount is a service which is normally not expected by a consumer and the action definitely caused financial loss and mental agony to the Complainant.

                                  Having observations, reflected above, it is directed that, Ops will refund the security amount of Rs. 1320/- along with 6% S.I. P.A. calculating from dt. 24/12/2014 to till its realization along with Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five Hundred only) as cost of litigation. Failing to comply the order 9% interest will be charged for the delayed period and action be initiated as per the provisions of C.P.Act, 1986.                                      

                          Complaint is allowed in part with cost.

                Pronounced in the open Court, this   28th day of November, 2017.           

                  I, agree.                             I, agree.

                 Sd/-                                      Sd/-                              Sd/-

              MEMBER                         PRESIDENT              MEMBER