Heard learned counsel for both the sides. Mr. Dibyashree Ray,Advocate appears for the respondent by filing vaklatnama which is accepted.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The unfolded story of the complainant  is that the complainant  having its office at Sambalpur and its factory at Belpaca in Bolangir district  applied to the Chief General Manage,Telecom on 31.07.1995 for installation of a Hot line to his  land line telephone. Thereafter, the Op after due sanction  asked complainant to deposit Rs.95,500/- towards advance rent of the said connection. Such amount was deposited and   document  was also executed between the parties. After  receipt of money of Rs.95,500/- no Hot  line was  connected. After waiting a consideration period the complainant asked the OP to refund Rs.95,500/-. Since, the Op turned a deaf ear  with the request of the complainant, he later on filed the complaint.

4.            The OP  filed written version stating that they have received the application of the complainant  for the hot line connection and accordingly the complainant deposited  Rs.95,500/- with the OP for the said purpose. They have also averred that the application was considered by  the higher authority and finally the Chief General Manager,Telecom sanctioned  the connection as requested by the complainant  but  lateron found that  there are already arrear of Rs.76,602/- payable by the  complainant to the OP against the concerned land line and for that they have not refunded the money  but that  to adjust same against arrears. It is averred in view of the huge arrear pendin, under the Indian Telegraph Rules, they are unable   to give  hot line to the landline of complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service  on the part of the  OP.

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum  passed the following order:-

                       Xxxxxxxx      xxxxx               xxxxxxxxx

                    “ In the result, the complaint is allowed  and hence this order :

Ordered that the OP shall refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.95,500/-(Rupees Ninetyfive thousand five hundred) within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the said amount from 18.09.1995 till the date of actual payment.

          In the peculiar circumstances there shall be no order as to compensation or cost. With the above direction we dispose off the complaint petition.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  learned District Forum has committed error in law by not awarding interest while allowing to refund Rs.95,500/- to the complainant. According to him  the money which is required to be refunded should be refunded with interest from the date   of deposit as arrear dues, sanction of new hot  line money was deposited.  He further submitted that after sanction of the hot line, the OP sat over the matter but lateron he took plea that there is outstanding against the complainant. By such unfair trade practice  adopted by the OP, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice proved under Act against the OP. The complainant is therefore entitled to the compensation which is not granted under the impugned order. So, he filed the appeal for granting other relief qua  new hot  line  connection to his land lie. So, he submitted to modify the operative portion of the impugned order and grant relief as asked for  to the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision of Charan Singh-Vrs-Healing Touch Hospital & Others  in 2000 (7) SCC 668  in order to support his case.

7.                 Learned counsel for respondent submitted that  the complainant is not entitled to refund of any money because there is outstanding of Rs.76,602/- against the complainant for telephone land line  against which hot line is asked for and the money has been kept  to adjust such arrear  amount. He submitted that there is no mistake on their part to hold out that money.  So, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.                  It is admitted fact that the complainant had applied for new hot line connection and for that he was  asked to deposit Rs.95,500/- before the OP. It is not in dispute that after due sanction of new hot line, complainant deposited Rs.95,500/- with the OP. It is also not in dispute that on 07.06.1995 the complainant was informed that Chief General Manager,Telecom has sanctioned for new connection. Infact, inspite of sanction  the complainant was not given hot line connection.

10.              The plea of the Op is that there is outstanding of Rs.76,602/- against  the said land line  to  which Hot line extension was asked by the complainant. But  learned counsel for the respondent does not file any paper/document to prove his plea. However, Section 416 of the Indian Telegraph Rules speaks as follows:-

              (1) The Telegraph Authority may reject any application for the connection of a new telephone or for providing any similar service or for the alteration of any existing service.

         (2)   Before rejecting any application under sub-rule (1), the Telegraph Authority shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:-

 (a) the antecedents of the applicant and where the application was made by any person duly authorized by the applicant, the antecedents of such person;

(b) whether there are any telephones dues outstanding in the name of—

(i) the applicant; or

(ii) the person duly authorized by the applicant, if the application was made by such authorized person on behalf of the applicant’

© whether any Gazetted Officer of the Central Government or a State Government duly authorized by such Government, has recommended to the Telegraph Authority that in the interests of the maintenance of law and order any telephone of any service as is referred to in sub-rule (1), should not be provided to the applicant, or, as the case may be, to the person duly authorized by the applicant; and

  (d) any other relevant factor.

(3) No action shall be taken under sub-rule(1), unless notice of not less than seven days has been given in writing to the person concerned and the Telegraph Authority has considered the representation, if any, made by such person in the matter.”

11.                  The above provision clearly shows that  if there is outstanding against  the same telephone, there should not be sanction of new telephone line.  In the instant case before sanction of the telephone line the Op could have served notice after which it could have rejected the request of the complainant. Having not done so, and no document with regard to outstanding of Rs.76,602/- against the complainant filed, we are of the view  that the OP has gross  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  for keeping the amount already deposited by the complainant. Therefore, we agree with the finding of the learned District Forum.

12.           Learned District Forum has only asked to refund the money of Rs.95,500/- to the complainant. When the OP admitted that  there is outstanding against the complainant but later sanctioned the new telephone by ignoring the arrear it would be observed that they have waived out that arrear. Even if for sake of argument, it  is taken as a deviation of the procedure, the OP can be held to have negligence in  allowing new connection.

13.                    In either of the way the OP is  found to have  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted  at their level. Even if the complainant asked to return the money but  the OP instead of admitting their fault has sat over the matter to refund the money. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that they have preferred the  appeal in F.A.887/2006 against the order of  the learned District Forum. It is also disclosed that the  appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution. The matter does not rest there because the Op, in order to overcome their weakness have filed the  appeal. Be that as it may, when the appeal is  disposed of, we only hold that in the fact and circumstances as depicted above, there lies right of the complainant to claim compensation. When money of  Rs.95,500/-  has  retain by the OP without utilizing  for the  reasons best known to OP, that is also refundable with interest. Learned District Forum allowed to refund the money but has refused  to pay interest and compensation having no reasons assigned. Every order should be passed with reasons  but no such ration reason assigned.

14.               In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the complainant being entitled to compensation with interest, we hereby modify the appeal by directing OP   to refund Rs.95,500/- with interest @ 9 % per annum  from the date of impugned order till date of payment. Further, we also direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- by the OP to the complainant. All these amounts would be payable within 30 days from today, failing which they will carry 12 % per annum on each count.

              Hence, the appeal is allowed. No cost.

       Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

               DFR be sent back forthwith.