Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

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 case    of the complainant, in nutshell is that  the complainant  was allotted  a Government quarter No. D/9 at  Cluster buildings  at MV-2,Malkangiri  on payment of security deposit of Rs.900/-  of his own.  The security deposit was paid to the OP No.1 as per allotment of quarter by OP No.3. It is alleged inter-alia that the complainant while left the quarter has cleared all the electricity dues and obtained No Dues Certificate from the Ops. It is alleged that the OP No.1 & 2  did not adjust the security deposit of Rs.900/- in the final bill nor refunded the said amount to the complainant at the time of  issue of NDC. Inspite of request of  the complainant, the OP No.1 & 2 did not comply the request of the complainant. So, the complaint was filed.

4.          The OP No.1 & 2  filed written version stating that the Govt. Quarter, the DDO used to deposit the security deposit for the cluster building and the complainant is consumer  is to deposit at that time. They  also averred that the amount  of security deposit can be refunded on production of the money receipt. So, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

5.                OP No.3 has been set-exparte.

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                 “  The Opposite Party No.1 & 2  are directed to refund the Security deposit of Rs.900/- to the complainant forthwith. It is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for harassment caused to the complainant and pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) towards the litigation expenses within 30 days on receipt of a copy of this order. In default, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are liable to pay Rs.100/- per day of default payable in to the account of Odisha State Consumer Welfare Fund.”

7.             Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering  the written version filed by OP No.1 & 2 with proper perspectives. According to him,  the complainant has not produced any money receipt   towards deposit of security deposit amount to comply the request. Said fact has not also discussed by the learned District Forum. The impugned order has not discussed about the material  on record but   has only quoted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which  are not relevant for this case. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

9.                 It is settled in law that  complainant has to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is admitted fact that the complainant  being Govt. servant was allotted the Govt. Quarter at Malkangiri. It is also not in dispute that  the security deposit and Rs.900/- were deposited. It is also not in dispute that no NDC has been obtained by him while left the quarter. The only question arises  about refund of Rs.900/- deposited as security deposit or  the adjustment of that amount in the final bill. We have also issued notice to the complainant to produce the money receipt  to make his grievance fruitful but he has not appeared  and none  appeared from him. On perusal of record it appears that  the complainant has not produced any money receipt towards deposit of Rs.900/-. When   he claims  the refund of the security deposit, normally the money receipt should be  produced by the Govt. servant towards the security deposit and take back the security deposit if he has deposited.  When the money receipt showing the security deposit  is  not filed, the claim for refund of  same at the instance of the OP even if NDC is granted, can not be said as deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

10.                In view of aforesaid discussion,  we are of the view that learned District Forum has not analyzed  the case with proper perspectives and hence it is set-aside and the appeal stands 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.