.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

O R D E R

SRI.P.V.SINGRI, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainants under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund them security deposit of Rs.60,204/- together with interest, compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and cost of litigation.   

2.      The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That the mother of the complainants Smt.J.K.Rangamba was a Proprietor of M/s.Suryakanthi Industries and she expired on 23.12.2012.  The father of the complainants Sri.A.C.Krishna Rao also has died.  The complainants are the only legal heirs of their mother Smt.J.K.Rangamba. During her life time the said Smt.J.K.Rangamba had obtained Electric supply to her industry for which she had deposited security amount with OPs in a sum of Rs.60,204/- on 24.09.1997.  The OPs have issued six cash bills for having received the said amount of Rs.60,204/- .  The complainants were regularly paying power bills.  The said industry was closed in the year 2005 and the complainants mother surrendered power connection in PNP 2829 to the OPs and the OPs have disconnected the power supply.  Thereafter, the OPs issued a letter dated 28.10.2006 and in pursuance of the said letter the complainants mother paid a sum of Rs.49,000/- and Rs.43,000/- under two separate receipt on 22.10.2006.  Thus, there is no any due to be paid to the OPs. 

3. Thereafter, the complainants many times have requested the OPs to refund a security deposit amount and even they wrote letters on 20.02.2007, 20.10.2008, 23.02.2009 and 10.07.2013 requesting for refund.  However, the OPs failed to refund the security deposit on one or the other pretext.  That the OPs without there being any valid reason have withheld the said security deposit which is causing unnecessary harassment to the complainants. That there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and their conduct has put the complainants to hardship and mental agony.  The complainants also got issued a legal notice dated 09.09.2014 demanding the OPs to refund the security deposit, however the OP failed to respond to the legal notice. 

4. For the aforesaid reasons complainants prays for an order directing the OPs to refund the security deposit amount of Rs.60,204/- together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of disconnecting the power supply till the date of realization and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainants together with cost and litigation. 

5. In response to the notice issued, OP appeared through their Advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:-

The complainants have filed the above complaint with a malafide intention to unjustly enrich unlawfully.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The OPs are not entitled for refund of any amount.  The complainants are not consumer of the OPs. The RR No.2829 was serviced in the name of Smt.J.K.Rangamba, M/s.Suryakanthi Industries with sanctioned load of 66HP.  The said Smt.J.K.Rangamba had deposited a sum of Rs.59,600/- for obtaining power connection.  After the death of Smt.J.K.Rangamba one Sri.J.K.Sathyanarayan on her behalf applied for refund of the amount without any documents to show that he was legal heir of Smt.J.K.Rangamba.   That the registered consumer or legal heirs alone are entitled for refund of the said amount.  The complainants have not produced any documents to show that they are legal heirs of registered consumer.  The complainants are not entitled for the security deposit amount made by Smt.J.K.Rangamba.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

7. The complainants to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, filed his affidavit evidence of complainant No.1 in lieu of oral evidence, together with relevant documents. The OPs filed the affidavit evidence of one Mr.M.Suresh, Assistant Executive Engineer Bescom, the authorised signatory of OPs.  Both the parties submitted their written arguments.

8. On the rival contention of the both the parties, the points that arises for our determination are as under:

1. Whether, the complainants proves that they are only legal heirs of deceased Smt.J.K.Rangamba, the proprietor of M/s.Suryakanthi Industries?

2. Whether, the complainants proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint?

3. If So, to what relief or order the complainant is entitled to?

8. Perused the allegation made in the complaint, averments made in the version, the sworn testimony of both the parties, the various documents produced by both the parties, written arguments submitted by both the parties and other material placed on record.

9. Our answer to the above points:

10. POINT NO.1:  It is not in dispute that the mother of the complainants by name Smt.J.K.Rangamba was running an industry in the name and style ‘M/s.Suryakanthi Industries’ and she had obtained a power connection to the said Industries in R.R.No.2829 with sanction load of 66HP for which she had made a security deposit with OPs in a sum of Rs.60,204/-.  Admittedly, during her life time the said Smt.J.K.Rangamba closed the Industry and addressed a letter to OPs requesting them to disconnect the power supply and accordingly the power supply was disconnected and she was asked to pay the arrears to the tune of Rs.92,000/-.  Accordingly, the said amount was paid on 12.10.2006 under two separate receipts No.4704 and 4705. When the complainant demanded the OPs to refund the security deposit they refused to pay the same on the ground that the complainants are not the legal heirs.          

11. The complainants claim that they are only legal heirs of deceased Smt.J.K.Rangamba and they alone are entitled for the said security deposit made by their mother.  That the complainants to substantiate the same have produced a survival family member certificate issued by Thasildhar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore dated 24.06.2013.  According to the said certificate the complainants Sri.K.H.Giridar and Smt.K.H.Mangala are the only legal heirs of Smt.J.K.Rangamba who died on 23.12.2012.  The OP did not deny the correctness or otherwise of the said certificate issued by the competent revenue authority.  The complainants have also produced the death extract of Smt.J.K.Rangamba according to which she has died on 23.12.2012. The complainants have produced the death certificate of their father Sri.A.C.Krishna Rao who died on 12.10.2006.   The father of the complainants has pre-deceased his wife.  Therefore, survival family member certificate issued by the competent authority coupled with the sworn testimony of the complainant No.1 goes to establish that the complainants alone are the legal heirs of the deceased Smt.J.K.Rangamba who died on 23.12.2012.   Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in affirmative. 

12. POINT NO.2:  The complainant No.1 in his sworn testimony reiterated the allegation made in the complaint and asserted that immediately after the closure of the industry, the power connection given to the industry was disconnected by the OPs and as demanded by the OPs arrears amounting to Rs.92,000/- was also paid on 28.10.2006.  Immediately, after the disconnection of the power connection to the industry and after payment of the arrears the OPs were duty bound to refund the security deposit to Smt.J.K.Rangamba.  However, for the reasons best known to them the OPs did not refund the said amount to Smt.J.K.Rangamba till she died on 23.12.2012.   Thus, it is apparent that without their being any valid reason the OPs have not refunded the security deposit to Smt.J.K.Rangamba even after 6 years from the date of disconnecting the power supply and payment of entire arrears.  The OPs either in their version or in the affidavit did not explain as to what prevented them from refunding the said security deposit of Smt.J.K.Rangamba, who was alive for more than 6 years from the date of payment of the entire arrears.

13. After the death of Smt.J.K.Rangamba the complainants have addressed several letters to the OPs requesting them to refund the deposit amount.  However, OPs have failed to do so without their being any valid reason.  It is contended by the OPs in their version that the husband of Smt.J.K.Rangamba Sri.A.C.Krishna Rao had also applied for refund of the said amount, but without document to show that he is a legal heir of the said Smt.J.K.Rangamba.  It is pertinent to note that the said Sri.A.C.Krishna Rao, the husband of Smt.J.K.Rangamba, father of the complainants, has died on 12.10.2006.  Whereas Smt.J.K.Rangamba has died 6 years thereafter i.e., on 28.12.2012.  This goes to show that the OPs are putting forth the lame excuses for not refunding the security deposit to which Smt.J.K.Rangamba was entitled during her life time and the complainants who are entitled to said amount being only legal heirs of the deceased Smt.J.K.Rangamba.  The complainants being the only legal heirs of Smt.J.K.Rangamba are certainly entitled to the said Security deposit.  The copy of the letter produced by the complainants goes to show that since after payment of entire arrears the complainants are writing repeated letters to the OPs for refund of security deposit.  However, the OPs have not responded to any one of such letters and withheld the said amount with them without any justifiable cause. This conduct of OPs certainly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Further this conduct of the OPs must have put the complainants to lot of harassment, untold hardship and mental agony.  Therefore, apart from refunding the security deposit the OPs are also liable to pay adequate compensation to the complainants with litigation cost.  For the discussion made above we are of the opinion that the OPs have to be directed to refund the said security deposit of Rs.60,204/- together with interest at 18% per annum from 12.10.2006, on which date the complainant paid the entire arrears, till the date of realization.  Further, the OPs have to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- for inconvenience, hardship and mental agony suffered due to deficiency in service on their part together with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-.

14. POINT No.3: The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  In the result we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainants u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.

2. The OPs are directed to refund a sum of Rs.60,204/- to the complainants together with interest at 18% per annum from 12.10.2006 till the date of realization.

3. Further the OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainants together with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-. 

4. The OPs shall comply the order within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

5. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Forum by us on this the 18^th day of December 2015)

MEMBER                               MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

NRS* 

C.C.No.1900/2014

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant dated 24.04.2015 1) Sri.Giridhar

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs dated 22.04.2015

1. Sri.M.Suresh, Asst Executive Engineer of BESCOM,

MEMBER                               MEMBER                              PRESIDENT