1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he had taken land line connection from the Ops to his residence at Forest Colony in the year, 2002-03 vide Tel. No.251030 and later on it was shifted to Lingaraj Nagar.  The complainant alleges that the telephone became defunct from 9/2012 to 3/13 and could not be brought into order by the OPs in spite of repeated request, for which the telephone was surrendered in the month of March, 2013 stating the inaction of the Ops but the Ops did not refund the Security Deposit amount on repeated approach.  It is submitted that the complainant made an application to the OP.2 on 07.4.2015 requesting refund of S.D. amount but to no action by the OPs.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, he filed this case praying Forum to direct the Ops to refund the S.D. amount with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about one Telephone No.251031 at Jeypore was provided to the complainant by them and the same was functioning till 15.3.2013.  Denying the allegation of non refund of S.D. amount, the Ops contended that a Cheque bearing No.000825 Dt.26.5.2015 towards balance S.D. amount was sent to the complainant though Regd. Post but due to Door Lock, the Regd. Letter was returned to the Ops by postal authorities.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                    Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases and the Ops filed affidavit.  Heard from the complainant as well as A/R for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the telephone No.251030 supplied to the residence of the complainant is an admitted fact though the Ops have put a wrong telephone number (251031) in their counter.  The allegation of the complainant is that his telephone became defunct from 9/12 to 3/13 and on repeated approach, the Ops failed to bring the telephone into order with different pleas.  The Ops stated that the above allegation of the complainant is not true and the telephone was functioning during the said period. 

5.                     In order to ascertain the truth, we have carefully gone through the copies of telephone bills filed by the complainant for the relevant period.  Bill Dt.06.6.12, 06.10.12 & 06.12.12 show that almost no usage charges have been claimed by the Ops.  That means, the telephone has not been used by the complainant during the relevant period.  The Ops have only charged the monthly rent and taxes etc. from the complainant in those bills.

6.                     The Ops submitted that the telephone line was OK but the complainant was not using his telephone during that period.  This contention of Ops does not sound good because now a day use of telephone has become a very common thing.  If the complainant will not use the telephone, why should he keep the telephone by paying rents etc. and what is the intention of retaining a telephone?  Further the Ops have not stated that only incoming facility was there in the telephone of the complainant during the disputed period.  As such the contention of the Ops that the complainant was not using his telephone is rejected.

7.                     Further the Ops admitted that the complainant has surrendered his telephone on 15.3.13.  After surrender of telephone, it is the duty of the Ops to refund the S. D. amount to the consumer-complainant but they failed to do so.  The complainant stated that he approached the Ops several times personally to which the Ops denied.  Further the complainant has made application on 07.4.2015 to the OP.2 for refund of amount and the harassment caused to him.  The copy of said application with dated signature of OP.2 is available on record. The Ops also denied receipt of any complaint from the complainant. Those are the symbols of utter callousness on the part of the Ops towards their customers.

8.                     The complainant has filed written argument stating that he being a senior citizen was running after the Ops for refund of his dues but the Ops were taking several pleas for their inactions and to hide their faults.  The complainant has also mentioned his Cell Number in his surrender application. It is stated that the Ops have never contacted the complainant on his cell phone.  The Ops have neither challenged the above allegations of the complainant nor filed the copy of surrender application for perusal.

9.                     Further the Ops stated that they have sent a cheque dt.26.5.2015 to the complainant towards balance dues but the registered letter returned due to door lock of the complainant.  It is seen that the Ops have not filed the copy of cheque which was returned undelivered. The details of deduction and computing procedure have not been mentioned in their counter.  We failed to understand as to why the Ops took more than two years time to settle the claim.  This inaction of the Ops is very bad and certainly amounts to serious deficiency in service.

10.                   From the above discussion, it was ascertained that the complainant has surrendered his telephone on 15.3.13 but on repeated requests the Ops arbitrarily retained the dues for such a longer period.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get the S. D. amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from 15.3.2013 without any deduction as any claim has ever risen by OPs.  Further it is well established that the complainant has requested the Ops on different modes but the Ops have paid a deaf ear to the grievance of the complainant for which he must have suffered some mental agony.  Further the complainant has filed this case for such inaction of the Ops incurring some expenditure.  Considering the sufferings of a senior citizen, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complaint will meet the ends of justice.

11.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund the S.D. amount in full with interest @ 12% p.a. from 15.3.2013 and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost to the complaint within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)