Orissa

Rayagada

CC/91/2018

G.VS. Prakash Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Self

08 Nov 2019

ORDER

                

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,12.10  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.       91         / 2018.                                    Date.     08    .11. 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  KumarMohapatra,                                       President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

Sri  G.V.S Prakesh Rao, S/O: Late G.Ganesham, Resident of Cooperative colony,  Convent Road, Po/ Dist:Rayagada(Odisha).                                                                                                                                      …..Complainant.

Versus.

1.The General  Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Po/Dist: Koraput.                                                                                                   …Opposite parties.           

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri  R.K.Patra and associates,Advocate,  Rayagada.

.For the O.Ps . :-Set  Exparte.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non refund of  security deposit  a sum of Rs.5,000/-  towards  provision for  private STD pay phone in favour of the complainant  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the  O.P.   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  20 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P .  Observing lapses of around 2(Two) years   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P . The action of the O.P  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. No.3  set  exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the   complainant.    Perused the record, documents, filed by the learned counsel  for the complainant. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  learned counsel for the complainant  touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

Undisputedly  the complainant  had  deposited  Rs.5,000/- towards security deposit provision for private STD payphone  in favour of the complainant on DT.3.7.2006 (copies of the  demand note issued by the O.P. in favour of the complainant  and deposit  receipt  No. 0023140  DT. 3.7.2006  are in the file which are marked as Annexure-1 & 2). The complainant  had continued   used  the  STD pay phone till 5.7.2016 and he was   paying the bills regularly.  Further the complainant on Dt. 5.7.206  made an application  to the O.P. for closure of the STD pay  phone  No.06856-223807. In turn the  O.P had issued final bill  of Rs.566/- on Dt.2.8.2016 bearing bill No. 178526698 and the complainant had deposited the  above amount on Dt. 27.1.2018 (copies of the STD  payphone return receipt Dt. 5.7.2016  and  payment of final bill payment receipt  dt. 27.1.2018  are in the file which are marked as Annexure-3 & 4).

The main grievance of the complainant is that after closed &  return back  of  STD payphone  to BSNL authority  inter alia  payment of  final bill  as per the demad notice  of the O.P. , but till date the O.P had not refunded deposited  security amount, hence this C.C. case. 

It further appears that prior to filing   of complaint, the complainant had issued legal notice through its counsel on Dt. 05.02.2018 and it was duly served on the O.P.(Copies of the legal notice and postal Registered receipt  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-5)   but they failed to furnish reply to the said notice. Hence it appears that the O.P. has been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the forum.

 

           

For better appreciation this forum relied citations which  are put forth  in the present case:-

It is held and reported in C.P.R-2012(2) page No. 224  the hon’ble  State Commision, Punjab, Chandigarh   in the   case  of   BSNL   Vrs.  Rama Rani  where in observed  “Non refund of security  money constitutes deficiency  in service”

Further it is held and reported in  CTJ 2006  page No. 127   the Hon’ble MRTP commission,  New Delhi  where in observed “Withholding  of the security  money  held to be illegal and an unfair trade practice”.

On perusal of the complaint petiton and documents filed by the learned counsel for the complainant it is revealed  that actually  the complainant had  deposited  Rs.5,000/- as security deposit and was obtained private STD payphone   on DT.3.7.2006.  The contention is that  the complainant  has  surrendered the   private STD payphone   on Dt.5.7.2016 inter alia final bill issued by the O.P. the complainant paid the bill amount  a sum of Rs.566/-  on Dt. 27.1.2018  but even then the security deposit  was not refunded to him. The complainant even issued a legal notice on Dt. 05.02.2018 but to no effect.  He then filed the  present complaint claiming  refund of the  security amount of Rs.5,000/- and compensation inter alia interest  a sum  of  Rs.4,000/-.

After hearing the arguments from  the learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the record  this fourm  came to conclusion  that there is deficiency in service is well established on the part of the  O.P. This forum further observed the action of the O.P. has already  caused mental agony and physical tension and harassment to the complainant and he had already  spent on  litigation in filing the present complaint.  It is, therefore,  necessary  to compensate the complainant  on the said account.

Considering the entire evidence  and the  arguments  of the learned counsel for the complainant the  O.P is liable to  refund   the security deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- along with simple  interest  @ Rs.9% per annum  from the date of filing  of C.C. case i.e. on Dt. 22.6.2018 till realisation.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.

ORDER.

In  resultent the  petition of the complainant is allowed  in part against the O.P.

 The O.P is  ordered to  refund security deposit  amount  a sum of Rs.5,000/- along with interest  @ Rs. 9 % simple  interest  from the date of filing  C.C. case  i.e. on  22.6.2018 till realization, besides to pay  Rs.500/- towards litigation  expenses.

.

                We therefore issued a “Cease and Desist” Order against the O.Ps. directing him to stop such a practice forthwith and not to repeat in future    

                The O.Ps. are ordered to comply the above direction within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order .

Dictated and corrected by me,  Pronounced on this         8th. Day of    November, 2019.

 

MEMBER.                                        MEMBER.                                        President