SRI SANTI PROSAD ROY, MEMBER

This is a case for getting refund of the security deposit money from the OP.

In short, case of the Complainant, is that in the wake of closure of his factory, under the name and style, “Sadharan Bani Mill” since the year 2014, he applied for refund of the security deposit money of about Rs. 36,236.00 from the OP on 27-07-2015.  For this purpose, he submitted all the requisite papers, viz., original money receipt, final bill, identity card to the office of the OP.  It is alleged that, despite compliance of necessary formalities and vigorous follow up of the matter with the officials of the OP at different levels, till date the OP has not returned the security deposit money to him.  Hence, this case.

OP contested the case by filing W.V.  OP has admitted receiving the application in question from the Complainant seeking refund of the security deposit money on 27-07-2015.  It is stated by the OP that on receipt of the application from the Complainant, it forwarded the same to the appropriate authority, i.e., Assistant Manager (F&A), Tamluk division, on 08-09-2015. It is further stated by this OP that the application of the Complainant is under process and further that it generally takes some time to complete relevant official formalities.  It denied any sort of negligence or laches on its part over non-refund of the security deposit money to the Complainant.

Point for consideration is, whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief, or not.

Decision with reasons

We have gone through the documents on record submitted from the side of the Complainant, viz., photocopies of security deposit receipt, last bill, application dated 27-07-2015, lawyer’s notice.  No document is filed from the side of the OP. 

OP has not disputed the authenticity of any of the documents submitted from the side of the Complainant. It has also candidly admitted the fact that it did receive an application from the Complainant for getting back the security deposit money. Accordingly, we take the documents at their face value.

The solitary defense advanced from the side of the OP is that the application of the Complainant is under process and he would get back the solicited sum in due course of time. 

Significant to note here that the Complainant submitted his application before the OP, along with all the requisite papers for getting refund of the security deposit money on 27-07-2015, and he filed this case before us on 21-04-2016, i.e., after nearly 9 months from the date of application and even now, the OP is found to be in a state of dilemma as to when the Complainant would get back his hard-earned money. 

If one is to trust the version of the OP, a year long time is not sufficient for its officials to process a refund claim.  Strong denial from the side of the OP notwithstanding, we afraid, non-processing of a refund claim even after nearly a year manifests nothing but sheer negligence on the part of the concerned officials which is highly condemnable.  Clearly, OP has made a desperate attempt to defend something which is virtually indefensible.  

Ideally, public officials should remain 24 x 7 at their toes to serve general public. The irony, however, is that, taking undue privilege of their position of authority, a section of public officials are hell bent compelling customers to run from pillar to post to get the work done.  At the same time, it is also a fact that our antipathy to contain with such gross dereliction of duty on the part of public officials often compounds our misery. 

Even for the sake of argument if we are to assume that the hard pressed schedule of the officials of the OP tied their hands in the matter, it cannot be a cogent ground to hold back the security deposit money of a customer.  If at all there remains any internal systematic loophole to deal with such issues, it is up to the higher authorities to step in and streamline the whole process.  A customer cannot, under any circumstances, fall prey to the shortcomings of the OP. 

We cannot overlook the fact that had the money been put to some productive use, the Complainant could earn rich dividends out of it.  Even parking the money in banks or some other financial institutions could fetch him interest which he is losing for no fault of his.

In such circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to direct the OP to make good the loss suffered by the Complainant besides returning the security deposit money.  That apart, we also hold it liable for payment of litigation cost to the Complainant.

Accordingly, the instant complaint case is disposed of in favour of the Complainant.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C. C. No. 42/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.  OP is directed to refund the security deposit money (approx. Rs. 36,236/-) to the Complainant within 30 days hence together with an interest @ 6% p.a. over the security deposit sum from 27-07-2015 till full and final payment is made i.d. Complainant is at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law in which case, OP shall be liable to pay fine @ 100/- per diem from this day till the order is complied with in toto.