ORDER

Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

This is an appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.09.1999 passed by the District Forum, Pauri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 13 of 1999; Sh. Satyaprasad Kala and another vs. Sub-Divisional Manager (SDO), Door Sanchar, Kotdwar, Garhwal, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 530/- to the complainant No. 2, deposited by the complainants, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 20.12.1996, i.e. the date of deposition, till the date of actual payment, within one month from the date of order.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as stated in consumer complaint, are that the complainants filed consumer complaint, wherein it was prayed that the opposite party be directed to install the telephone connection without delay and award Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

3.       The complainants have alleged in consumer complaint that the opposite party has assured the complainants that the telephone exchange is to be installed.  On the assurance of opposite party, the complainants have deposited the security amount for getting telephone connection. The complainant No. 1 applied for telephone connection and deposited Rs. 1,000/- as security amount by way of receipt No. 233 and complainant No. 2 deposited Rs. 530/- by way of receipt No. 230 for telephone connection.  But no telephone connection was installed by the opposite party, therefore, complainants have filed the consumer complaint. .

4.       The complaint was contested by the opposite party-SDO by filing written statement. In the written statement it was stated that the telephone connection was not installed by the opposite party due to non-availability of material and land.

5.       The District Forum, after hearing both the parties and perusal of the evidence filed in the case, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the money deposited by the complainants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.

6.       Since, there was no telephone exchange, so the prayer made by the complainants in the consumer complaint could not be allowed and the District Forum has rightly directed the opposite party-appellant.  Since, there is no fault of the appellant-opposite party, hence the order of interest levied upon the opposite party-appellant is not proper.  We, accordingly, set aside the order of awarding interest @ 12% per annum.  Thus, the appeal succeeds partly and the order impugned is to be modified accordingly. 

7.       For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 22.09.1999 passed by the District Forum Pauri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 13 of 1999 is modified and the appellant is directed to pay the security amount deposited by the complainants. The award of interest @ 12% per annum passed by the District Forum is set aside.  No order as to costs.