COMPLAINT FILED: 31-03-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 29th JULY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI.A.M. BENNUR : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA : MEMBER <br /> SRI.A. MUNIYAPPA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.756/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT I.Christopher<br /> S/o. Irudaynandan, <br /> Aged: 56 Years,<br /> R/o No:1007,5th Cross,<br /> Ramakrishna Hegde Nagar,<br /> No.136/2, Pillappa Compound,<br /> Arebic Collage Post,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri. A.M.Mothekhan<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Senior Manager,<br /> Tata Tele Services Ltd.,<br /> A Block, Silicon Tarraces,<br /> No.30/1, Hosur Main Road,<br /> Kormangala,<br /> Bangalore –560 095.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Swamy Shiva Prakash .H<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.2,000/- security deposit amount with damages of Rs.500/- per day along with interest and cost. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant is a Businessman running a studio by name Glamour Digital Studio in Amruthahalli Main Road, Bangalore. On 26-12-2005 the complainant availed two land line telephone connection from the OP bearing Nos.57642486 & 57642487 from Tata Tele Services Ltd., 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore one for his residence another one for his studio by depositing amount of Rs.1,000/- for each telephone, totally the complainant deposited Rs.2,000/- with the OP. The complainant gave his studio contact No.57642486 to all his customers to get orders from them. One line worked only for 10 days and another one worked for 7days. Thereafter same is disconnected without any reason. Inspite of repeated complaints to the OP there was no response. The complainant incurred loss in his business by not getting orders from the customers due to non-functioning of the telephone. Hence the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version contending that the complainant has not furnished the new numbers. Complaint is barred by time. The complainant has surrendered the instruments after 1½ year. The telephone numbers given in the year 2005 were changed. The numbers furnished by the complainant were not existing in the system maintained by the OP. So, OP is not in a position to give any reasons as to why the telephones were disconnected. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that on 26-12-2005 the complainant availed 2 land line telephone connections bearing Nos. 57642486 & 57642487 from the OP. One for his residence and another one for his studio on depositing Rs.1,000/- each. The complainant has produced the receipts issued by the OP dated 26-12-2005. It is the case of the complainant that one landline telephone worked only for 10 days and another worked for only 7 days. Thereafter the same is disconnected without any reasons by the OP. Due to the said disconnection the complainant suffered loss in his business. <br /> <br /> 7. As against this the contention of the OP is that the complainant has not produced new telephone numbers. The numbers given in the year 2005 were changed. The telephone numbers furnished by the complainant do not exist in the system maintained by the OP. It’s the OP who gave the new numbers. The complainant has produced the copy of the letters addressed to the OP on 25-05-2007, 22-10-2007 and 22-10-2008, endorsement of the OP, reply of the OP, copy of the legal notice. Inspite of service of notice there was no response from the OP. <br /> <br /> 8. Admittedly, the complainant has surrendered the instruments on 25-05-2007. OP could have refunded the amount to the complainant. Non-refund of the security deposit amount till date amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Further the contention of the OP that the complaint is barred by limitation cannot be accepted because till OP refund the deposit complainant will get recurring cause of action. The complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The delay in non-refunding of the deposit amount for about more than two years must have naturally caused mental agony to the complainant. By retaining the said amount after disconnection and surrendering of instruments OP accrued the wrong full gain to self and caused wrong full loss to complainant that too at no fault of his. <br /> <br /> Under the circumstances justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the deposit amount along with interest and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. <br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund the security deposit amount of Rs.2,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 25-05-2007 till the date of realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 29th day of July 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />