The complainant is a consumer under the O.P. 1 bearing customer ID 242134375 and used to enjoy electricity through service connection no. 738, category ‘A (CM-R)’ having obtained the same on payment of total quotation money of Rs. 13,281/- which includes the security deposit of Rs. 9,000/- (vide Annex1). After certain time he was no longer in need of such supply of electricity and by his letter dated 19/06/2008 requested O.P.1 to disconnect the service line which was carried out on and from 20/06/2008 (vide annexure 2).
In view of the norms of the WBSEDCL the security money is refundable after adjustment of dues, if any, on disconnection of supply. Despite the leter dated 16/09/2010 (vide Annex 3) followed by several reminders (vide annexure 4 series) and ultimately advocate’s letter dated 05/09/2014 (vide annexure 5) the security deposit has not been refunded to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Denying all allegations and claiming the petition of complaint barred u/S 24 of the C.P.Act the O.Ps have contested the case contending inter alia that the complainant did not submit the original receipt showing deposit of security money and that no request was made to it for refund of the security deposit but the same was made to the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Purulia Customer Care centre. Pleading no negligence on their part a prayer for dismissal of the petition of complaint has been made.
Only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to refund of security money, if any. What other relief is he entitled to?
Decision with reason
Admittedly, the complainant was a consumer of electricity under the care and control of the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Telkalpara Customer Care Centre, Post & Dist. Purulia. But the case was initially filed against Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Purulia Customer Care Centre, J,K.,College Road, Post & Dist. Purulia. Subsequently, after amending the mistake, the present O.P.1 has been impleaded who has been contesting the case by submitting written version. Annexure 3 speaks that prayer for refund of security money was submitted in the office of the present O.P.1. Its plea that the original security deposit receipt has not been filed is turned down by annexure 3 itself which a receipted copy of the prayer for refund of security money which speaks that the original security deposit receipt was annexed with said letter. Therefore, we do not find commission of any mistake on the part of the complainant. But the lawyer’s notice dated 05/09/2014 is addressed to the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Purulia Customer Care Centre (Vide Annex 5). So, such notice being not addressed to the present O.P.1 (since impleaded after amendment) the present O.P.1 cannot be held responsible for any negligence. But initial prayer for refund of security deposit followed by reminders (vide annexure 4 series) was submitted to the office of the present O.P.1 which ought to have been duly addressed. In this regard the O.Ps. cannot shake off their responsibility.
Referring the lawyer’s notice dated 06/09/2014 upon which the cause of action is based, Ld Advocate for the O.Ps has submitted that since that letter was not addressed to the office of O.P.1, the cause of action cannot arise on the basis of that letter. He has further stated that as per para 7 of the petition of complaint initial cause of action is claimed to have arose on 20/06/2008 and so the petition of complaint filed on 30/01/2015 is barred u/S 24 of the C.P.Act.
In reply, Ld advocate for the complainant has submitted that the aforesaid letter dated 06/09/2014 was undoubtedly received by one of the offices of O.P. No. 2 and action should have been taken upon it by sending it to the appropriate office.
He has further submitted that after amendment of the cause title of the petition of complaint the present O.P. 1 was impleaded and after it entered appearance was supplied with the copy of petition of complaint and accordingly joint written version has been filed. In this background, it mat safely be concluded that the present O.Ps have been made aware of the legal notice dated 06/09/2014 which is the last fact added to the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action. In this view of the matter we hold that the petition of complaint is not barred by limitation. Together with this we appreciate the submission of Ld advocate of the O.Ps that the security deposit is refundable and his clients are willing to refund the same provided no further claim is made on the self same receipt showing such security deposit. This submission he has made on the plea that the complainant did not submits the original receipt showing security deposit to the office of the O.Ps which we find not correct.
Admittedly, the security deposit become refundable since the time the consumer ceases to enjoy electricity which in this case has been done on 20/06/2008. Since the security deposit amounting to Rs. 9,000/- been so long lying with the O.P. it must be refunded with interest @ 6% p.a. to the complainant form 20/06/2008 till payment.
In the result the petition of complaint succeeds. Hence,
ORDERED
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest.
The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to refund to the complainant the sum of Rs. 9,000/- (Rs. Nine thousand) only (Security deposit) together with interest @ 6% p.a. to be calculated from 20/06/2008 till payment.
Such payment has to be made positively within two months from the date of this order failing which the order shall become executable.
Regard been had to the mistake, mentioned in the body of the judgment, committed by the complainant we refrain from passing any order as to cost and compensation.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.