| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/110 of 1.6.2015 Decided on: 6.10.2015 Bansal Group of Industries, Village Dhablan, Nabha Road, Patiala, through its Proprietor Jonny Bansal. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(Powercom),Head Office:The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. 2. S.D.O./Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (Powercom), Sub Division: Kalyan, District Patiala. 3. Ashok Goyal, Xen, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (Powercom), Division East, Near DCW (now DMW),Patiala. …………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Jonny Bansal, Prop. of the complainant in person. For Ops No.1&2: Sh.Nitin Goyal, Advocate For Op no.3: Exparte. ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT - The complainant was the holder of electricity connection bearing a/c No.P28MS280054P with a sanctioned load of 65.88KW, installed at shed “C”, D.C.farm house village Dhablan, Kalyan Feeder, District Patiala. At the time of getting the connection installed, the Ops had got a sum of Rs.53,700/- deposited by way of security vide receipt No.233 dated 19.1.2012.
- The complainant closed his business in December,2014 and moved the application before Op no.2 for disconnection of the supply to the said account number on 5.1.2015.The application was received by Op no.2 and on the same day the connection was disconnected by the Ops.
- On 19.1.2015, the complainant moved the application before Op no.2 for the refund of the security amount with interest, the same having been sent through registered post. The Ops issued the checking report No.24/235 dated 3.2.2015 to the complainant having stated that the connection had been disconnected and the Ops will send the meter for being checked to the ME Lab. The Ops however, failed to refund the security amount. In the mean time, the Ops got a sum of Rs.6522/- deposited from the complainant vide receipt No.26 dated 13.2.2015 on the ground that the same was the outstanding amount of the bill dated 10.2.2015, after the deposit of which the Ops had assured to refund the security. On the same day, the complainant sent the reminder dated 13.2.2015 to Op no.2 through registered post but even then the Ops failed to refund the security amount although another reminders were sent on 13.2.2015, 10.4.2015 and 10.4.2015 and even the complainant submitted the original security deposit receipt on 16.3.2015.Rather the complainant was threatened by Op no.3 that in case the complainant demanded the security amount , a theft case will be planted upon him. The act of the Ops in not having refunded the security amount is said to be an unfair trade practice, which resulted in the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to refund the security amount of Rs.53700/- with interest; to pay him the compensation in a sum of Rs.one lac on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.11000/- towards the costs of the complaint.
- On notice only Ops no.1&2 appeared and filed their written version while Op no.3 was proceeded against exparte.
- In the written version filed by Ops no.1&2, they have admitted the factum with regard to the complainant having got his electricity connection in question disconnected having moved the application in this regard on 5.1.2015 and they have further submitted that the security amount of Rs.53,700/- has been refunded to the complainant on 3.6.2015 vide cheque No.356115 dated 26.5.2015.It is also averred that the amount of the interest was transferred in account No. MS-28/0056 to the tune of Rs.3373/- in response to letter dated 17.6.2015 of the complainant. No threat was given by the Ops to the complainant. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed his evidence.
- On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Er.Bahadur Singh,AEE Sub Division Kaylan of the PSPCL alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed their evidence.
- The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the complainant in person, the learned counsel for the Ops and gone through the evidence on record.
- By now, the Ops have refunded the security amount of Rs.53700/- to the complainant vide cheque No.356115 dated 26.5.2015 and they have further credited the amount of the interest of Rs.3373/- in account No.MS-28/0056, which is the other account of the complainant as would appear from Ex.OP3, the copy of the ledger, a fact admitted by the complainant in his sworn affidavit Ex.CA.
- It was submitted by the complainant Sh.Jonny Bansal that the security was refunded by the Ops on 3.6.2015 and the amount of interest was credited into the account of the complainant on 6/2015 as would appear from ledger Ex.OP3 after the filing of the complaint although the connection to his account No.P28MS280054P had been got disconnected by the complainant from Op no.2 on 5.1.2015 as would appear from Ex.C5, the copy of the letter written by the complainant to Op no.2 asking for the refund of the security amount. He had to send reminders Exs.C6 dated 13.3.2015 and C8 dated 10.4.2015 for the refund of the security amount but the Ops having failed to refund the security amount he was constrained to file this complaint on 1.6.2015 and the security was refunded by the Ops after the filing of the complaint on 3.6.2015 while the interest was credited into account No.MS-28/0054 on 17.6.2015. He had to suffer the harassment and the mental agony because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and therefore, the complainant may be suitably got compensated from the Ops and the complainant may also be awarded the costs of the complaint.
- On the other hand nothing could be submitted by Sh.Nitin Goyal, the learned counsel for the Ops because the facts and figures speak for themselves.
- We have considered the submissions. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, it would appear that the Ops without any just and reasonable cause withheld the security amount of account No.P28MS280054P despite the fact that the connection in respect of the said account was disconnected on 5.1.2015 and the complainant applied for the refund of the same vide application Ex.C1 dated 5.1.2015 itself and he also issued the reminders Exs.C2 dated 19.1.2015,C5 dated 13.2.2015 and C6 dated 13.3.2015 and therefore, we accept the complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and the same is inclusive of the costs of the complaint. The order be complied by the Ops within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced Dated:6.10 .2015 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member Member President | |
