IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC /74/2017.
Date of Filing: 08.05.2017 Date of Final Order:26.04.2018
Complainant: Deb Sagar Das,S/O Arun Chandra Das, Vill. Nabagram Para,
P.O.&P.S. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742137.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Kandi CCC, P.O.& P.S. Kandi,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742137.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : None.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri S.S. Dhar (G.P).
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati , President
This is an application U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. One Sri Deb Sagar Das (herein after referred to as the complainant) filed the present case against the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Kandi CCC (herein after referred to as the OP) alleging deficiency in service.
The gist of the complaint case may be described as follows:-
The complainant took electric connection from the OP in the name of M/s Das Enterprise, C/o Deb Sagar Das, being Consumer I.D. No. 313157072 which was permanently disconnected on 31.07.2014. It is the specific case of the complaint that the complainant applied before the OP for refund of his Security Deposit amounting to Rs.24,000/- on 11.08.2014 and the OP refunded only Rs.23,953/- vide Cheque No. 860218 drawn on SBI, Kandi Branch on 31.10.2014. The complainant is entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a. interest on the Security Deposit as per guidelines of the W.B.E.R Commission. The complainant contacted the OP for getting his interest amount but of no result, for which he lodged a complaint against the OP with the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Murshidabad Region Office on 27.01.16 and on the date of settlement OP No.2 was present and on 11.02.16 an assurance was given to the complainant to refund the amount by six months and as per advice of the OP, the complainant filed an application along with documents on 23.02.2016 but ultimately, the issue was not resolved.
Hence, the complainant filed this case praying for reliefs.
The complainant prayed for a direction upon the OP to make payments of interest of Rs.10, 000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
The OP put appearance and filed Written Version on 19.07.2017 inter alia, denying the allegations of the complainant, contending that the complainant is not a Consumer and the case is not maintainable. The OP admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.24,000/- on 23.12.2002 as Security Deposit and the connection was effected from 28.09.2003. It is the case of the OP that the disconnection was made as per application of the complainant dt. 31.07.2014. It is also the case of the OP that the mistake showing Security Deposit of Rs.24,00/- in lieu of Rs. 24,000/-was due to typographical mistake. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the complaint petition and the W/V, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
Point for Decision
- Is the complainant a “Consumer” in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is the complaint case barred by Law of Limitation?
- Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 3.
The complainant himself submits that the case is quite maintainable as the complainant is a consumer under the OP. It is also argued that the case has been filed within the Statutory Period of limitation and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
In reply, Ld. Agent for the OP has said nothing on the above three points.
Having gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the complainant and the Xerox copy of documents filed by the complainant, we find that the complainant is a “consumer’ in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We also hold that the case is not barred by Law of Limitation and this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
So, the above three points are disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Point Nos. 4&5.
The complainant submits that he deposited Rs.24, 000/- as Security Deposit on 23.12.2002 and his connection was disconnected on 31.07.2014 and he received only Rs.23, 953/- as refund from the OP. It is argued that he is entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs.24, 000/- till realization. He also submits that he is entitled to get litigation cost and compensation for deficiency in service on the part of OP.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the OP received Rs.24, 000/- on 23.12.2002 as Security Deposit from the complainant and his connection was disconnected on 31.07.2014. He further argues that the OP refunded Rs.23, 953/- vide Cheque No. 860218 drawn on SBI, Kandi Branch on 31.10.14 and Rs.1501/- was adjusted in the electric bill of the complainant for the month of September, 2014. He argues that the complainant received total amount of Rs.25,454/- against his Security Deposit of Rs.24,000/- . He fairly submits that the OP may be directed to refund any amount to the complainant after calculating the interest on the Security Deposit by deducting the amount of Rs.25, 454/- which has already paid to the complainant.
It is argued that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and if any amount is found due from the OP, it is nothing but a bonafide mistake on the part of the OP.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the complainant and the Xerox copy of documents furnished by the complainant. We have carefully considered the submission of both sides.
Admittedly, the complainant was a consumer of the OP and the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected on 31.07.14.
Admittedly, the complainant deposited Rs.24, 000/- as Security Deposit on 23.12.2002 vide receipt No. OR/AA/02-03 /092816.
Admittedly, there is a mistake on the part of the OP regarding recording of Security Deposit in the name of the complainant showing Rs. 2400/- in lieu of Rs. 24,000/-.
Admittedly, the complainant lodged complaint with the OP for refund of his Security Deposit with interest but he only received refund of Rs.23,953/- vide Cheque No. 860218 drawn on SBI dt. 31.10.14 and adjustment of Rs.1501/- vide final bill dt. 01.08.14.
It is clear that the complainant got adjustment of Rs.25, 454/- for his Security Deposit of Rs.24,000/-.The complainant is entitled to get 6% interest p.a. on his Security Deposit as per guidelines of WBER Commission. On calculation of interest on Rs.24, 000/- @6% p.a. during the period from 23.12.2002 (date of deposit) to 31.07.2014 (date of disconnection) amounts to Rs.15, 360/- . Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.24000/-(as security deposit) + Rs.15, 360 (as interest) = Rs.39, 360/- but the OP adjusted Rs.25, 454/-. The complainant is entitled to get the rest amount of Rs. 13,906/. (39360 – 25,454). The OP has not refunded the said amount of Rs.13, 906/-in spite of repeated reminders by the complainant. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.13, 906/- due from the OP.
The OP has urged that there was no deficiency in service. In our considered opinion, the OP has deficiency in service as the OP did not resolve the issue in spite of repeated reminders by the complainant. We think that the complainant should be compensated for deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
The complainant has also prayed for litigation cost. We think that compensation of Rs.3000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- for litigation cost will meet the ends of justice.
Reasons for Delay :
The case was filed on 08.05.2017 and admitted on 17.05.2017. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of provision U/s 14(3A) of the C. P. Act, 1986. The delay is mainly due to lack of Quorum. The reasons for delay has also been reflected in day to day orders.
In the result, Consumer Complaint No. 74/2017 succeeds.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 74/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- .
The OP is directed to pay Rs.13, 906/- towards due interest to the complainant by 45 days from the date of this order.
The OP is also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant by 45 days from the date of this order. The OP shall comply the order by 45 days from the date of this order, in default, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. till realization to the Complainant.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties /Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand/by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website: confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President
