O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner, filed on 7..7..2009, is as follows. Petitioner availed a Tata Indicom Telephone Booth from the opposite party at Changancherry as a means of his livelihood. Petitioner deposited Rs. 6,200/- to the opposite party for the dealership out of which Rs. 4200/- is refundable deposit towards and Rs. 2000/- other expenses. After installing the booth, petitioner conducted he telephone booth for about 3 months. Due to financial stringency petitioner surrendered the telephone booth. Petitioner contacted the opposite party office at Kochi for the refund of the deposit amount. -2- On enquiry it was known to the petitioner that the telephone connection availed to the petitioner was given for the use of some other person behind the back of the petitioner. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in non refund of the security deposit is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount. Petitioner claims Rs. 10,000/- as damages for mental agony and cost of the proceedings,. 2nd opposite party was set ex-parte. First opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. They admitted about availing of the Tata Indicom Telephone connection. The package availed to the petitioner is known as IB Point Prima 4200 and the investment by the operator per PTB is Rs. 4200/-. Out of this amount Rs. 4000/- is refundable , non interest bearing security deposit, to be paid to the TTSL. Rs. 200/- is initial credit. According to 1st opposite party the refund of security deposit of Rs. 4,000/-is done after surrender of the connection. According to the opposite party after surrendering the telephone by the petitioner and after confirming that the installed materials had reached the warehouse first opposite party has sent a Cheque for Rs. 4,041.64, as per DD No. 441468 of City Bank, payable at Kottayam . The said cover was returned as the addressee not known. According to the opposite party they were always ready and willing to return the deposit as promised and on the first positing date of the complaint itself counsel of the opposite party offered the returned Cheque. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. -3- Points for determinations are: i) Whether petition is maintainable or not? ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? iii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by petitioner and 1st opposite party and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 documents on the side of the 1st opposite party. Point No. 1 Counsel for the 1st opposite party vehumently argued that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 7687/04 this petition is not maintainable before this Forum. Section 7 B of Arbitration of Disputes states that “except as otherwise expressly provided . If any dispute concerning any telegraph line appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefits the line appliance or apparatus is or has been provided the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to arbitrator appointed by the Central Government.” In our view dispute in hand is not concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus between the authority and the complainant. Dispute is only with regard to refund of the amount which is given to the opposite party as a security deposit. In our view it is not a dispute to be referred under section 7 B of the telegraph Act and the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7687/04 is not applicable in this case and the petition is maintainable. -4- Point No. 2 According to the petitioner he surrendered the telephone connection of the booth on 6/2008. But the security deposit was not refunded and Cheque was sent after a lapse of 9 months, even after receipt of the lawyers notice issued by the petitioner to the opposite party. According to the opposite party delay was due to the non receipt of the apparatus at the warehouse of the opposite party. Petitioner produced the terms and conditions with regard to the PTB operation said document is marked as Ext.A1.No where in Ext. A1 it is stated that refund of the amount will be done after receipt of the apparatus at the warehouse. Petitioner also produce letter issued by the first opposite party to the petitioner on 30..6..2008. said document is marked as Ext. A3. From Ext. A3 it can be seen that apparatus was surrendered in June 2008. Further more no where in Ext. A3 it is stated that the deposit will be refunded only after receipt of the apparatus in the warehouse. So, argument of the opposite party is not sustainable. Opposite party produced the Cheque dtd: 28..3..2009 for an amount of Rs. 4041.64 said document is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the amount offered was refunded only on 28..3..2009. So, however, there is a delay of 9 months in offering the deposit amount. In our view the act of the 1st opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. Without saying what had happened had definitely caused much inconvenience and sufferings to the petitioner. Opposite party argued that as per the TRAI regulation opposite party is only liable to refund, security deposit after 60 days of consideration otherwise the service provide is liable pay 10% interest per annum for the delayed period -5- beyond 60 days. In this case security deposit was not refunded after 9 months. So, point No. 2 is found accordingly. Point No. 3 In view of the finding in point No. 2 petition is allowed. Opposite party produced a DD for Rs. 4,000/- before the Forum Dtd: 28..3..2009 and the instrument is now time barred. As the DD Dtd: 28..3..2009 is time barred and the 1st opposite party is ordered to refund the amount of Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner. Opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for the loss and sufferings. Rs. 750/- is ordered as cost of the proceedings. The order shall be complied with within one month. If the order is not complied as directed petitioner is entitled to get 10% interest from 9/08 till realization. Opposite party can collect the DD submitted before the forum as per Rules. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of June, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the Petitioner Ext. A1: PTB operator application form Ext. A2: Smart PCO card Ext. A3: Letter Dtd: 30..6..2008 from Krishnakumar to Abraham Thomas. Ext. A4: Lawyers notice Dtd: 12..3..2009 Ext. A5series Postal receipts Documents for the Opposite party Ext. B1: Copy of the pay link Cheque Dtd: 28 Ext. B2: Postal cover Ext. B3: Trai Regulation. By Order, Senior Superintendent
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | , | | 
