Haryana

StateCommission

A/1188/2016

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM RATTAN - Opp.Party(s)

G.C.BABBAR

06 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1188 of 2016

Date of the Institution:13.12.2016

Date of Decision: 06.07.2016

 

1.      Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Panipat through its Divisional Engineer, Telecom, GT Road, Near Bus Stand, Panipat.

2.      SDO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Model Town, Panipat.

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Ram Rattan S/o Sarup Singh, R/o H.No.67, Housing Board Weavers Colony, Assandh Road, Panipat.

 

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.Rram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.G.C.Babbar, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.Ravi Kant, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Delay of 16 days is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that initially, the complainant had applied for issuing a land line telephone connection on 11.11.1997.  In this regard, he has deposited the amount of Rs.3000/- and new telephone connection No.2656431 was installed at his premises.  Out of the amount of Rs.3000/-, a sum of Rs.1650/- was kept as a security for one year and the amount of Rs.800/- was also adjusted for the installation charges.  Lateron he has surrendered the telephone and claimed the security amount of Rs.3000/- be refunded, contrary to it, there was some other outstanding amount against the complainant, for which, a complaint was preferred by the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (In short “District Forum”), which has been allowed vide order dated 27.10.2016.

3.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.ps. have preferred this appeal on the grounds that out of the total amount of Rs.3000/-, the amount of Rs.1650/- was kept as a security and the amount of Rs.800/- was also charged for installation of the telephone.  However, the learned District forum has committed grave error while accepting the complaint and as such it was finally prayed that the order passed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 27.10.2016 may be set aside and the appropriate directions may be issued to make the payment of the actual amount.

4.                Notice was issued. Sh.Ravi Kant has appearing on behalf of the respondents. The original record has also been summoned.

5.                Thereafter the arguments have been advanced by Sh.G.
C.Babbar learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.Ravi Kant learned counsel for the respondent.  With their kind assistance the entire record as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the contention raised on behalf of both the parties and after perusal of the entire record, the basic and the foremost question which arises for adjudication of this Commission is as to whether the learned District Forum has committed an error while allowing the complaint instituted by the complainant or the present appellants are entitled to make the payment of the actual amount after deducting the outstanding bills as well as other misc. charges?

7.      As a matter of fact, when an application Ex.C-3 submitted by the complainant that he does not require the land line telephone No.2656431 and as such, he may be permitted to surrender the same and the security amount may be refunded. On this application Ex.C-3, it has been reported by the accounts officer that no bill is outstanding qua the telephone No.2656431 upto dated 01.08.2015.  Since no bill or the amount was outstanding against the complainant, the learned District Forum was well within the legal rights to examine the issue and then to decide the complaint.  In the  considered opinion of this Commission, the learned District Forum has not committed any error while allowing the complaint with directions to make the payment of the security of Rs.3000/- within the period of 30 days alongwith the compensation for causing the physical agony of Rs.1100/-.  As such the present appeal is devoid of any merits stands dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.550/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification.

 

July    06th, 2018                   Urvashi Agnihotri                 Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                        Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                   Addl. Bench                           Addl.Bench                           

s.K.