CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/43/13

          Date of Institution:-    29.01.2013

          Order Reserved on:- 09.04.2024

                    Date of Decision:-      28.06.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sardar Singh

S/o Late ShKrishanLal

R/o 1721 A, B-1,

VasantKunj, New Delhi

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

M/s Mahanager Telephone Nigam Ltd.

(Through its GM/DGM/AGM/A.R.)

South-I, BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi     

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe has taken an interest rate on voluntary deposit scheme 2000 and 2001 on his telephone number 2689459. He has deposited the amount. The OP has fixed the interest @12% p.a. on first deposit and @9% p.a. on the second deposit. The interest will be adjusted in the forthcoming bill. The OP has reduced the interest rate from 12% to 5% and from 9% to 5.5% without any intimation to him from June, 2003. He has demanded the interest as agreed but in vain. He has written letters to the OP and met the officials to do the needful but in vain. There is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the written statement with the averments that complaint is barred by Telegraphic Act, 1885. The rate of interest is subject to change after notification from RBI/SBI. It is not possible to inform each and every depositor about the reduced rate of interest as conveyed by MTNL Headquarters. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents.

6. The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. Ram Raj Verma, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents.

7. We have heardthe both parties and perused the entire material on record.

8. There is no dispute that complainant is not the subscriber of telephone no.2689459. There is no dispute that complainant has not deposited the amount of Rs.60000/- on 25.02.2000 at the interest rate of 12% p.a. and Rs.30,000/- on 19.03.2001 at the interest rate of 9% p.a. The complainant has admitted that said rate of interest was given till May, 2003 but said rate of interest was not given in June, 2003 onwards.

9. The plea of OP is that the rate of interest was reduced in terms of the Office Order No.Re-2-1/2003-2004/Acctts./Interest On Subscriber Depositsdated 02.06.2003 and No.TR/Comp/Sys/Rlg/247/01-03 dated 22.09.2003asreceived from MTNL, Headquarter.

10. The OP has reduced the rate of interest in terms of the circular received from MTNL Headquarter. The OP has not reduced the rate of interest of its own. There are number of depositors with OP so it is not possible to inform each and every depositor. The duty lies upon the complainant to check from the passbook or bill about the amount of interest received by him. The complainant should have immediately raised the issue with the OP rather than waiting for the years together. The interest has been credited in terms of the circular by the OP so there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

11. In view of above discussion, the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations as set out in the complaint and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 28.06.2024.