Before the District consumer Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 21th day of October, 2003
C.D.No.64/2002
S.Gurulingam,
S/o. S.Pullanna,
R/o H.No.B/B-350,
B.Camp,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri B.Pullaiah.
-Vs-
The General Manager,
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Kurnool. . . .Opposite party represented by his
Counsel Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma.
O R D E R
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11& 12 of C.P Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to refund deposit amount of RS 2,000/- with 12% interest per annum, RS.1, 000/- as costs and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party took surrender of the complainants telephone No.34779 on 5.9. 2001, even though the complainant owes no dues of any bills till then, the opposite party did not refund the said refundable deposit of RS 2,000/- inspite of complainants repeated approaches and letter of complainant to the opposite party dated 21.8.2001 and the said conduct of the opposite party at him in not refunding the deposit amount, amounts to deficiency of service and he is entitled to the claims made.
3. The complainant in support of his contentions filed his letter to opposite party dated 21.8.2001.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum to this case the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and filed its written version denying the complaint averments are not maintainability either in Law or in facts, the complainant was owing a due of bills dated 6.8.2001 for RS 498/- and another bill dated 6.10.2001 (part bill) for RS 305/- and installation charges of Rs.800/- hence the said due amount totaling RS.1, 603/- was deducted from the complainants refundable deposit of RS.2, 000/- and the residuary amount of RS 397/- was sent through cheque No.477634 dated 8.4.2002 along with a covering letter to the complainant.
5. The lapse if any was on the part of the complainant in surrendering the telephone and receive the amount executing advance stamp receipt as the said amount could not be refunded for want of advance stamped receipt on account of non availability of the complainant to the telegram dated 2.4.2002 by the opposite party requesting the complainant to execute the advance stamped receipt for making the said payment, subsequently the complainant approached the Forum and filed this complaint. As the opposite party sent the residuary amount of RS 397/- to the complainant, there arises no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the complaint and seeks dismissal of complaint.
6. The opposite party in support of his contentions relied upon the following attested Xerox copies of telegram dated 2.4.2002, instant telephone bill dated 27.10.2001, final telephone bill dated 27.10.2001, refund order dated 2.4.2002, letter dated 10.4.2002 addressed to the complainant enclosing the cheque, cheque dated 8.4.2002 for RS 397/- issued in favour of the complainant, and G.I.D.O.I No.3-5/99 R & C dated 13.4.1999 and got the above documents marked as Ex B.1 to B.7.
7. Hence the point for consideration is whether there is any lapse of deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite party in the delay occurred in the refunding the residuary amount justifying the cause of action and claim of the complainant and liability of the opposite party for the said claim?:-
8. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant owes bills dated 6.8.2001, 6.10.2001 (part bill) and installation charges of RS 800/-, hence the above amounts totaling to RS.1,603/- were deducted from the deposit of the complainant. After the accounts were finalized the opposite party addressed a telegram on 2.4.2002 to the complainant requesting him to furnish the ‘Advance stamp receipt’ in order to release the residuary amount but there was no reply from the complainant’s side. Thereafter the residuary amount of RS.307/- was sent to the complainant addressed on 8.4.2002 through their cheque with a covering letter addressed to the complainant.
9. After filing of the case the complainant did neither appeared nor made any endeavour to substantiate the contentions made in the complaint, inspite of denial of the truth of his complaint averments by the opposite party. Mere averments in pleadings doesn’t amount to evidence in the absence of their substantiation by relevant cogent material on record, especially when the opposite party denies the truth of the complainants claim. Hence the complainant has not taken his case in the above said circumstances beyond the stage of mere averments which cannot have any force in the absence of their substantiation.
10. In the above circumstances the complainant remains utterly failed in substantiating his case against the opposite party, the complaint remains devoid of merit and force and their by the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
11. In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Type to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 21st day of October, 2003.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Telegram dated 02.04.2002 Attested copy.
Ex.B2 Instantaneous Telephone bill dated 27.10.2001 Attested copy.
Ex.B3 Final Telephone bill dated 27.10.2001 Attested copy.
Ex.B4 Refund order dated 02.04.2002 Attested copy.
Ex.B5 Letter dated 10.04.2002 Attested copy addressed to complainant enclosing Ex.B6.
Ex.B6 Cheque dated 08.04.2002 for Rs.397/- issued in favour of complainant Attested copy.
Ex.B7 G.L.Dot.No.35/1999 R and C dated 13.04.1999 Attested copy.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
