Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 03-07-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit II in CC/284/2013 whereby the complaint has been allowed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OPs thereof have preferred this Appeal.

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that being dissatisfied with the poor standard of service, he decided to surrender his telephone connection and accordingly, submitted duly filled up form on 07-08-2012.  Thereafter, on 13-08-2012, OPs collected the instrument from him.  It is alleged that despite due compliance of necessary formalities, the OPs did not refund him the security deposit money.  Hence, the complaint.

In their defence, it is submitted by the OPs that for the purpose of getting back security deposit money, one needs to apply before the AOTR/SB-II along with relevant documents and necessary instruction to this effect was clearly given at the bottom of the prescribed form.  However, as the Complainant did not follow suit, no refund could be made to him.  Disputing the claim of the Complainant that he paid a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as security deposit, it is stated that although initially the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 500/-, the same was duly adjusted against the first bill dated 10-11-2003 itself. 

Decision with reasons

It is purely a dispute over non-refund of security deposit money that the Respondent paid to the Appellants while availing of the telephone connection.  It seems, the Appellants have put in place due formalities whereof one is required to apply before the AOTR/SB-II for refund of security deposit along with instrument deposit receipt and other relevant documents after disconnection. It also appears that necessary instruction to this effect was given at the bottom of the application form for permanent surrender of telephone connection.

Undisputedly, the Respondent did not comply with such formalities.  While one may find fault with him in this regard, at the same time it is also true that the tenacity of the Respondent was tested to the hilt by officials of the OPs.

Allegedly, the Respondent initially pursued the matter of surrender of security deposit money with officials of OPs personally for long.  When no positive result emerged, he wanted to lodge a complaint with the Office of the Commercial Officer.  However, officials of the receiving section allegedly did not receive his complaint.  Then the Respondent sent a letter by post to the Appellant No. 3 on 23-05-2013.  As the concerned office too did not give any reply to his complaint, the Respondent filed the complaint.

Such conduct on the part of officials of the Appellant is highly unbecoming of any customer centric organization.  May be the Respondent was at fault as he did not approach the AOTR concerned for refund of security deposit.  However, that under any circumstances cannot be an alibi to be indifferent to the plight of a senior citizen.  It is unbelievable that for long 13 months (from 07-08-2012 to 06-09-2013) the Respondent was compelled to fend for himself as none from the Office of either the Appellant No. 1 or the Appellant No. 3 bothered to apprise him the right procedure.  It would certainly not denigrated the prestige or ego of Appellants had the Respondent been guided properly by them, particularly considering his advanced age.   The attitude of Appellant towards hapless customers is highly condemnable. 

The apathetic attitude of the Appellants towards the Respondent no doubt smacks of gross deficiency in service on their part.  Therefore, by allowing the complaint the Ld. District Forum only imparted justice to a bona fide consumer. 

Coming to the ordering portion of the impugned order, it appears that the cost amounting to Rs. 2,000/- as imposed by the Ld. District Forum has already been waived off by this Commission vide order dated 22-09-2014 in R.P. No. 30/2014.  As such, the Appellants need not pay this amount.  Further, the penal interest @ Rs. 200/- per day as imposed being too harsh, the Appellants are also absolved of paying this amount to the Ld. District Forum.

The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That FA/865/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest in part.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellants need not pay the cost or penal interest as mentioned hereinabove.  The Appellants are directed to comply with the modified order within 45 days hence, i.d., interest @ 9% p.a. over Rs. 3,000/- (Security deposit money) shall have to be paid to the Respondent from this day till the modified order is complied with in toto.