Presented by: -

                   Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.

Complaint Case No. 179/2022

The  complainant has instituted this complaint case against the OPs for passing direction upon the OPs to refund the complainant’s security deposit amount of Rs. 8,000/- and to pay compensation  and also for payment of litigation cost.

Fact of this case

Case of the complainant

This case of the complainant which is deciphered from the petition of complaint in bird’s eye view is that the complainant is a senior citizen and he applied to OP No. 2 for a new land line telephone connection on 22.02.1993 at his previous address at 43/2 Rajballav Saha Lane, Howrah – 711 101 and paid Rs. 8,000/- as security deposit to the OP in respect of the said new land line telephone connection and the OP No. 2 received the said amount and issued money receipt and the land line telephone connection being No. 2638- 6622 has been given .  It is also the case of the complainant side that he transferred the land line  telephone connection at his present address Ganges Garden, Block B-7, 3^rd Floor, 106, Kiran Chandra Singha Road, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah – 711 102.  It is submitted  that  thereafter  on 30.11.2020 complainant applied before the authority of the OPs for surrender  his land line  telephone connection and the OPs received the said written intimation on the same day and also had given receipt in respect of the said surrender  but they did not refund the said security amount of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant.  It is alleged that the dispute arising between complainant  and OPs is a consumer  dispute within the meaning  and scope of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  It is pointed out that thereafter  the complainant  finding no other alternative  had sent a letter through  speed post  on 25.02.2022 to the OP No. 3 and requested him to refund his said security amount  of Rs. 8,000/- but OP No. 3 received the said letter  but till today the Ops neither refunded  the said security deposit  nor had given any reply against this letter dtd. 25.02.2022.  It is further alleged that the OPs by his mal-activities , harassed the complainant which is the violation of human rights and dignity and for that reason the complainant  is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost.  According to the case of the complainant side the cause of action of this case arise on  and from when the complainant has been deprived from getting the security  deposit  of Rs. 8,000/-.  For  all these reasons  the complainant has instituted this complaint case against  the Ops for getting relief  as per prayer of the complaint petition.

Defense Case -   The OPs received the notice from this District Commission but in spite of receiving notice the Ops have not filed any written version.  As a result of which this case is running ex-parte against the OPs.

Points of consideration

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,  this District Commission for the purpose of  arriving at just and proper  decision  in this case and also for  the interest of proper and complete  adjudication of this case is going to adopt the  following points of consideration :-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OPs ?

      (ii)     Is this case maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law?

   (iii)   Whether the complainant has any cause of action for initiating this case?

(iv)      Has this District Commission jurisdiction to try this case?

(v)        Whether the complainant is entitled to get an award directing the OPs to refund the security deposit  to Rs. 8,000/- and to pay compensation and also for payment of litigation cost or not?

(vi)      To what other relief / reliefs is the complainant entitled to get in this case?

Evidence given by the parties

The complainant in order to prove this case has submitted evidence on affidavit and also filed documents which have been shown an Annexure A. B, C.  On the other hand the OPs have neither appeared nor filed any interrogatories against the evidence of the complainant.  More so, the OPs also have not filed any evidence on affidavit to disprove the case of the complainant.

Argument  highlighted  by both sides

Prior to start argument of this case the complainant side has filed Brief Notes on Argument.  In addition to the filing of Brief Notes on Argument, the complainant side  also highlighted verbal submission and has given emphasis on the evidence on record.

Decision with reason

The first 4 (four) points of consideration are taken up for discussion  at first as this of the vital issues and the points  and / or the issues involved in these points of consideration are interlinked and / or interconnected with one another.

For the purpose of arriving  at just and proper decision in respect of determination the fate of the above noted 4(four) points of consideration, there is urgent necessity of scanning  the evidence on record and also for examining  the material of this case record.

After going through the material of this case record and after examining the evidence on record, this District Commission finds that the complainant has deposited security amount of Rs. 8,000/- to the OP No. 2 and money receipt has been issued by the OPs against the said payment of security deposit.  It is also revealed from the evidence on record that the complainant thereafter transferred the land line connection to the separate address at Ganges Garden, Block B-7, 3^rd Floor, 106,  Kiran Chandra Singha Road, P.S. Shibpur, Dist.  Howrah   but subsequently  the complainant on 20.11.2020 applied to the OPs for surrendering the said land line phone  and OP received the said intimation.  In spite of receiving the security deposit  and also after receiving  the surrender intimation of the land line telephone  the OPs neither have returned the security deposit  nor have taken any steps in view of the letter submitted by the complainant.  All these factors are clearly reflecting that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs and as the complainant is a consumer under the OPs, this case is maintainable u/s 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act , 2019.  It is also reflected  that the complainant has also cause of action  for initiating this complaint case.  Regarding jurisdiction issue  this District Commission finds that the complainant is a resident of Ganges Garden, Block B7, 3^rd Floor, 106, Kiran Chandra Singha Road, P.S. Shibpur, Dist.  Howrah   which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission.  Moreover, the claim of the complainant is far below then Rs. 20,00,000/-.  This factor is also reflecting that this District Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant  has proved  his case in respect of all the above noted 4(four) points of consideration  and so above noted 4(four) points of consideration  are decided in favour of the complainant.

 The point of consideration No. 5 has been framed  by this District Commission over the issue  whether the complainant is entitled to get refund  of Rs. 8,000/- which was deposited  as security deposit and which was received by the OP No. 2 or not ?  Regarding this issue this District Commission after going through the evidence on record finds that the complainant has already surrendered  the land line telephone connection being No. 2638-6622 and in spite of surrendering the said land line telephone connection  the OPs have not refunded the security deposit of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant.  It is a clear instance of negligence  and deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and so the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 8,000/- from the OPs.

The point of consideration No. 6 has been taken up over the issue whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation and litigation cost from the  OPs or not ?    In this connection it is very important to note  that the complainant surrendered telephone connection in the year 2020 but even after the lapse of 3 years  the OPs have not refunded  the security deposit  to the complainant.  This matter is clearly indicating  that the complainant has been harassed by the OPs and so the complainant has approached before this District Commission  for getting relief.  All these factors are clearly reflecting  that the complainant  is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the OPs.

Recapitulating the above noted discussion this District Commission  finds that the complainant has proved his case in respect of all the points of consideration which have been framed by the District Commission in this case and so the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant  in this case.

In the result, it is accordingly,

ORDERED

That this Complaint Case being No. 179/2022 be and the same is allowed ex-parte  against the OPs.

It is held that the complainant is entitled to get refund  of  Rs. 8,000/- alongwith  interest  @ of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of filing of this Case on 30.06.2022 and complainant is also entitled to get compensation  of Rs. 7,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-  .

OPs are directed to pay the above noted amount to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment / final order.  Otherwise  the complainant  is given liberty  to execute this award  as per law.

The parties of this case are entitled to get a free copy of this judgment as early as possible.

Let this judgment / final order be uploaded in the official website of this District Commission.

Dictated & corrected by me

  President