Presented by Sri G.S. Pradhan, President. The Case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 250/-(Rupees two hundred fifty)only before the Opposite Parties as per their demand Note No. 3101812/06 dated 31/12/2006 for installation of a WLL Phone. Inspite of receipt of the amount the Opposite Parties neglected to supply the telephone till several months. The Complainant inquired the matter in the office of the Opposite Parties and informed by the official that, he will get the telephone after a week as its materials are not available for the time being. But the Opposite Parties did not take any action on the matter inspite of several request made by the Complainant. There after on Dt. 25/10/2007 the Complainant served pleader notice by Regd. Post with A.D., which was not responded.<br /> <br /> Further the Complainant contends that with out supplying a telephone, the Opposite Parties claims telephone bill for Rs. 1,448/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred forty eight)only vide bill No.T 0803200845081094 Dt. 08/03/2008 against the telephone No. 212006 from the Complainant. The claim of telephone bill against the Complainant is illegal for which he has lost his prestige in the society and under taken unnecessary mental pressure for such act of the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the Complainant filed this complaint and claims Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as compensation towards harassment, Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only compensation for demanding illegal bill and refund of Rs.250/-(Rupees two hundred fifty)only with interest and Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only compensation towards professional loss and litigation cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties filed version through his Advocate where in it is stated that, as G.M.T.D., Sambalpur has not been made a party, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party contends that, instead of depositing the amount in T.R.A. Counter, the Complainant deposited the amount in the Post Office. As the information regarding the payment could not reached the office of the Opposite Parties for which no effective steps could be take for installation of WLL Phone in his premises. The Complainant has never requested the Opposite Parties for installation of the WLL Phone or produced the money receipt before the Opposite Parties prior to the pleader notice dated 25/10/2007 which was received on Dt. 03/11/2007. After obtaining information from G.M.T.D., Sambalpur regarding receipt of the demand and after observing the formalities the Telephone No. BAPWF-212006 was allotted and released in his favour on Dt.16/01/2008 vide advice note No. D1527 dated 13/01/2008 which was refused by the Complainant for installation.<br /> <br /> Further the Opposite Parties contends that, once a number is alloted to a consumer, it is subjected the payment of dues and fixed monthly charges. As the number was allotted to the Complainant on Dt. 16/01/2008 the bill was generated on Dt. 08/03/2008 by the billing section. But after knowing about such mistake of sending the bill, the Opposite Parties have already cancelled the said bill.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contends that, for the reason stated above, the telephone could not be supplied to the Complainant and since the Complainant himself refused for installation of the WLL Phone, he is not entitled for the claim made in the Complaint petition and prays for dismissal of the Complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> We have gone through the Complaint petition Opposite Party's version as well as the copies of documents filed by the Parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant has applied for a WLL phone to be installed at his premises and deposited Rs. 250/-(Rupees two hundred fifty)only as per the demand note issued by the Opposite Parties. In spite of repeated request, the Opposite Parties did not installed the WLL phone at the premises of the Complainant and illegally claim Telephone bill. To prove his case the Complainant has filed two numbers of telephone bill and demand note with the receipt and copies of pleader notice.<br /> <br /> According to Opposite Parties instead of depositing the amount the T.R.A. counter the Complainant has deposited the amount in Post Office. As the information regarding the payment could not reached the office of the Opposite Party for which no effective steps could be take for installation of WLL Phone in his premises. The Opposite Parties could only know about the matter after the receipt of the pleader notice.<br /> <br /> As per the arrangement between the Department of Telegraph and Post Office, the subscribers of telephone are allowed to deposit the telephone bill either in the counter of the Post Office or in the counter of T.R.A.. The deposit in the counter of Post Office are accepted by the telephone department. As such the Complainant has deposited the amount in the Post Office and the deposit in the Post Office is not his fault.<br /> The Opposite Parties contends that after obtaining information from G.M.T.D., Sambalpur regarding receipt of the demand note and after observing the formalities the telephone NO. BATWF 212006 was alloted and released infavour of the Complainant on Dt. 16/01/2008 and the bill was generated on Dt. 08/03/2008 by the billing section. The telephone bill Dt. 08/03/2008 for telephone No. 212006 for Rs. 1,448/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred forty eight)only filed by the Complainant reveals that, the Opposite Parties have claimed the amount for the period Dt. 16/01/2007 to Dt. 29/07/2008. When no any telephone was allotted and released in favour of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties have illegally claimed the amount from Dt. 16/01/2007 with out providing him a telephone. More over the cancellation of the said bills was also not intimated to the Complainant. So we cannot believe the version of the Opposite Parties Demanding telephone bill by the Opposite Parties without providing a telephone will certainly hurt the mind of the Complainant/Consumer for which he suffered mental agony.<br /> <br /> In the circumstances, the Complainant is entitle to get not only the deposited amount but also with interest and compensation for mental agony.<br /> <br /> Accordingly Complaint allowed.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.250/-(Rupees two hundred fifty)only with interest at the rate of Bank interest on a fixed deposit and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only for mental agony and litigation cost to the Complainant with in 30(thirty) days form the date of Order, failing which the total amount will be charged 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till the date of payment.<br /> Complaint allowed.