District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.

Complaint Case No. 87 of 2008



Mala Kumar Singha w/o Dr. Ashok

R/o 172, co-operative colony, B.S.City. P.O. & P.S.- B.S.City, Dist.- Bokaro.

Versus

D.G.M.Telephone,

B.S.City.



Before-

S.M.Alam, President

Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member



Date of Judgment-: 05 March, 2009

Date of case filing-: 18 November, 2008



-: Judgment:-

The complainant has filed the present case against the opposite party and sought direction against the opposite party to pay Rs. 1861/- towards the deducted amount from the security money deposited by the complainant with 18% interest, Rs. 2000/- compensation and Rs. 2000/- cost of litigation to the complainant.

2 Brief facts of the case is that the complainant had applied for land line Telephone connection on 26.03.1999 and deposited Rs. 2000/- as security money , and the Telephone was finally installed by the opposite party on 13.07.2000. The complainant regularly and timely paid the monthly bill raised by the opposite party. The complainant was not satisfied with the service provided by the opposite party, as such on 24.04.2007 the complainant requested the opposite party to disconnect her Telephone and further requested to refund the security money through cheque. The opposite party informed the complaint on 07.05.2007 vide A/No. 3585 dated 27.04.2007 about permanent closure of Telephone vide Telephone No. 259663 but no security money was paid by the opposite party. The complainant again on 07.05.2007 requested the opposite party for refund of the security money but nothing has been done by the opposite party.

3 The further case of the complainant is that in the month of Oct.2007 she received bill from the opposite party of Rs. 37/- vide Bill No. 66210911 dated 18.09.2007 for the period between 01.05.2007 to 04.05.2007. The complainant paid the said bill on 23.10.2007 although during that period the Telephone of the complainant was disconnected. Again in the month of Sept. 2008 the complainant got information from the opposite party about non payment of bill no. 17329632 dated 18.05.2003 of Rs. 399/- and bill no. 61877800 dated 18.05.2007 of Rs. 592/-. The complainant immediately paid the amount of both the bill on 12.09.2008 and informed the opposite party and again requested the opposite party to pay her security deposit. On 14.10.2008 the complainant again visited the office of the opposite party and demanded the payment of security deposit but the staff of the opposite party misbehave with the complainant and also refused to receive the letter addressed to Sr. A/c Officer, BSNL, B.S.City for refund of security deposit.

4 The further case of the complainant is that after few days the complainant received the cheque of Rs. 169/- of P.N.B. from the opposite party against the security deposit of Rs. 2000/- after deducting Rs. 1831/-. The opposite party has deducted Rs. 1831/- without giving any reason just to harass the complainant though the entire bill has been paid by the complainant. The attitude shown by the opposite party regarding the bill in payment of security money to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service, as such the opposite party is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant together with compensation etc.

5 After issuance of notice the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement confronting the allegation of the complainant and submitted that the amount of Rs. 1831/- has been rightly deduct from the amount of security deposit of Rs. 2000/-. The details of deduction of Rs. 1831/- is as fellows Rs. 840/- installation charge, Rs. 399/-for Telephone bill dated 18.05.2003, Rs. 592/- for Telephone bill dated 18.05.2007. However the amount of bill dated 18.05.2003 and 18.05.2007 are refundable after production of payment receipt.

6 The claim of the complainant for refund of Rs. 1831/- with 18% interest of security deposit and compensation is baseless and liable to be rejected. There is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party and hence this case is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed.

7 Heard both the parties and perused the case records and documents filed on their behalf. It is observed that in the instant case the security deposit of Rs. 2000/- was refunded to the complainant by the opposite party after deducting Rs. 1831/- on account of installation charges besides amount of unpaid bills dated 18.05.2003 and 18.05.2007. But we are surprised to find that the complainant had already paid bill dated 18.05.2003 for Rs. 389/- and bill dated 18.05.2007 for Rs. 592/-, the copies of the relevant receipts against the above payment have been filed by the complainant. Besides, bill dated 18.09.2007 for an amount of Rs. 37/- has also been paid by the complainant as per the copy of the receipt placed in the case records. We are sorry to note that the opposite party has taken the matter very casually. It appears that the opposite party action in the matter has been only with a view to vex the complainant. The opposite party has also failed to justify the amount of Rs. 840/- deducted from the security deposit towards installation charges.

8 In the view of the above we have arrived at the conclusion that the opposite party has been negligent and deficient towards the complainant while deducting Rs. 1831/- from her security deposit of Rs. 2000/- and refunding the balance amount to her without any serious thought on its part. We, therefore, hold the opposite party liable to pay relief to the complainant.

9 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs. 1831/-(Rupees one thousand eight hundred thirty one) only along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount from the date of this order till payment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.