JUDGEMENT<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Smt. Sangamma against the two Respondents (1) M/s. Tele Services Limited, Telephony Business Unit Koramangala Bangalore. and (2) M/s. Datar Agencies Netaji Road, Raichur. The brief facts of the complainant are as under:<br /> <br /> The complainant is the resident of Raichur and doing small business for livelihood. In order to have added income she had decided to install STD pay-phone. The Respondent NO-1 provides STD Pay phones. The Respondent NO-2 is the Agent of the Respondent NO-1 in Raichur. In order to get the STD pay phone facility, the complainant had deposited sum of Rs. 14,995/- with the Respondent NO-1 by way of Bankers cheque bearing No. 185868 dt. 11-09-04. The complainant was paying the rent etc., regularly she was given Telephone No. 595095. <br /> <br /> On 21-06-2005 the Respondent No-1 introduced Buy-back of P.T.Bs., and disconnection. In furtherance of the disconnection and Buy-back policy of the Respondent NO-1, the Respondent NO-2 took away all the instruments. The Respondent NO-1 has refunded the advance deposit amount by deducting 25% of the amount towards damages as per the scheme. As per the letter dt. 21-06-05 the Respondent NO-1 & 2 are liable to pay the un-used currency deposited by the complainant. A sum of Rs. 4,488.18 ps. was in credit with the Respondents towards un-used currency amount. The complainant requested the Respondent to refund the said un-used current amount. Since the Respondent did not refund the amount in response to oral request, she sent a letter dt. 30-01-06 to both the Respondents by RPAD calling upon them to refund the amount. But till today they have not paid the amount which amounts deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Hence she has sought for direction to Respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 4,488=18ps. with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of disconnection dt. 21-06-05 till the date of payment and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for having suffered by parting with the amount and for awarding cost.<br /> <br /> 2. In response to service of notice Respondent NO-1 appeared through counsel. The notice issued to the Respondent NO-2 returned un-served for some time and lastly the notice issued by RPAD to Respondent NO-2 returned on 18-12-06 as Refused vide Postal Endorsement dt. 11-12-06 and so holding the service of notice to Respondent No-2 as sufficient he was called-out. But he remained absent. Hence Respondent NO-2 he has been placed Ex-parte. The Respondent NO-1 has filed written version denying the claim of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. In rebuttal the Respondent NO-1 has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has not produced any documents to be marked.<br /> <br /> 4. On 25-10-07 during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant submitted restricting the claim of the complainant only against Respondent NO-2 as she has got direct contact with the Respondent NO-2 only while doing the business and accordingly he has filed a memo to that effect. After hearing the L.C. for both the parties and in-view of said memo restricting the claim only against Respondent NO-2 so the complaint against Respondent NO-1 was dismissed as not pressed and proceeded against only Respondent NO-2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant in respect of the claim against Respondent NO-2 who is Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondent No-2 in not settling her claim, as alleged.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for.?<br /> <br /> 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> 1. In the affirmative.<br /> 2. As per final order for the following.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 <br /> <br /> 7. It is the case of the complainant that she had installed STD Pay phone provided by Respondent NO-2 being an Agent of Respondent NO-1 at Raichur and she was given Telephone NO. 595095 and for that she had deposited a sum of Rs. 14,995/- with Respondent NO-1 by way of Banker’s cheque bearing NO. 185868 dt. 11-09-04. She was paying the rent regularly.<br /> <br /> It is her further case that through letter dt. 21-06-05 the Respondent NO-1 introduced Buy-back of P.T.Bs and disconnection and in furtherance of the same, Respondent NO-2 took away all the instruments from her installation. The Respondent No-1 has refunded advance- deposit amount by deducting 25% of the amount towards damages etc., As per the letter dt. 21-06-05 the Respondents are liable to pay un-used currency provided to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 4,488.=18 ps. was in credit with the Respondent towards un-used currency amount. In spite of her request the amount was not refunded, so she sent a letter dt. 30-01-06 to both the Respondents by RPAD with acknowledgement calling upon them to refund the amount. But so for they have not paid the amount so she has filed the complaint for deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents and sought for direction to both the Respondents jointly and severally to pay Rs. 4,488.18/- ps. with interest at 24% p.a.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has reiterated the same in her affidavit-evidence. She has produced (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. Ex.P-1 is the copy of attestation letter from State Bank of Mysore , Raichur to Respondent No-1. Ex.P-2 is the Copy of the disconnections and buy-back letter dt. 21-06-05. Ex.P-3 is the office copy of the letter of the complainant to Respondent NO- 1 & 2 dt. 30-01-06. Ex.P-4 is the postal acknowledgement slip dt. 30-01-06. Ex.P-5 is the Postal Receipt dt. 30-01-06. Ex.P-6 is the copy of Banker’s Cheqne No. 185868 dt. 11-09-05 for Rs. 14,995/- favouring Respondent NO-1.<br /> <br /> 9. From the averments of complaint and affidavit-evidence along-with the documents at Ex.P-1 & P-6 it discloses that Respondent NO-1 had provided STD Pay phone (Telephone No. 59095) through its Agent Respondent NO-2, to the complainant by depositing a sum of Rs. 14,995/- vide Ex.P-6. It also discloses that Respondent NO-1 introduced buy-back of PTBs and dis-connection and accordingly the Respondent NO-2 took away all the instruments from instillation of complainant as per letter dt. 21-06-05 at Ex.P.2. It is also her case that as per letter dt. 21-06-05 Respondents are liable to pay un-used currency deposited by the complainant. A sum of Rs. 4,488.18 ps. was in credit with the Respondents towards un-used currency amount. The complainant requested the Respondent to refund the un-used current amount. Since the Respondent did not refund the same, in spite of oral requests she sent letter dt. 30-01-06 to both the Respondents by RPAD with A.D. calling upon them to refund the amount. The complainant has produced the Office Copy of her letter dt. 30-01-06 at Ex.P-3, Postal Acknowledgement Slip at Ex.P-4 and Postal Receipt at Ex.P-5. A perusal of the letter at Ex.P-3 shows that this letter was addressed to Respondent NO-1 which was sent through RPAD and a copy of the same was sent to Respondent No-2 M/s. Datar Agency Raichur under Certificate of Posting. We find an endorsement of Certificate of Posting with Postal Seal dt. 30-01-06 on the back side of this letter at Ex.P-3. As averred in the complaint and also as per memo dt. 25-10-07 restricting the claim only against Respondent No-2, the Respondent No-2 being the Agent of Respondent NO-1 has dis-connected the telephone and took away the instruments. As stated earlier the notice of the complaint issued to this Respondent NO-2 by this Forum returned un-served and lastly on 18-12-06 the notice of the Postal Cover returned as Refused vide Postal Endorsement dt. 11-12-06. So holding the service of Notice against Respondent NO-2 he was called out but he remained absent. So he has been placed Ex-parte. The conduct of Respondent NO-2 in not contesting the case itself shows that he has no defence against the case of the complainant. Therefore we find substance in the case put-forth by the complainant against this Respondent NO-2. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by Respondent NO-2. Therefore Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 10. The complainant has sought for a sum of Rs. 4,488.18 ps with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of dis-connection dt. 21-06-05 till the date of payment along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for having suffered by parting with said amount and for awarding cost of litigation. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point NO-1, we feel it just and proper to award Rs. 4,488/- with compensation of Rs. 1,500/- including cost of litigation. Hence Point NO-2 is answered and accordingly. In the result we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part against Respondent No-2. <br /> <br /> The Respondent NO-2 shall pay Rs. 4,488/- being un-used currency amount along with compensation of Rs. 1,500/- including cost of litigation.<br /> <br /> The Respondent No-2 shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-10-07)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi<br /> President<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath<br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.