Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 691.
Instituted on : 05.12.2022.
Decided on : 06.03.2023.
Mohinder Singh age 60 years s/o Sh. Sardar Singh R/o House no.858, Sector-4, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., near Court Complex, Adjacent to Mini Secretariat, Rohtak through Manager/Incharge/Owner.
- The Chief General Manager, BSNL, HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Anurag Malik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Satpal Singh AGM Commercial BSNL, Rohtak for opposite
parties.
ORDER
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he was having BSNL connection bearing no.272606 since long. On dated 16.09.2019 complainant closed his BSNL connection after depositing instrument set and with proper receipt. Opposite party no.1 told the complainant that he will receive the security within one month but despite repeated requests and letters of the complainant, opposite parties did not refund the security amount to the complainant. After waiting for two years, complainant also visited to the office of GM, BSNL, Ambala on 07.09.2021 and after three months he received a cheque bearing no.088181 dated 14.09.2021 amounting to Rs.2414/-. He deposited the alleged cheque in bank and received a return memo report from the bank that “31-Instrument outdated/state”. Complainant requested the opposite parties to re-issue the cheque but any heed was not paid to his requests. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the security amount alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Sh.Satpal Singh AGM Commercial BSNL, Rohtak appeared on behalf of opposite parties and made a statement that Rs.2414/- has been paid to the complainant as full and final payment. On the other hand complainant has made a statement that he has received the payment after many requests and personal visits in the office of opposite party. Hence harassment may kindly be given.
3. After going through the statement given by both the parties, hearing the parties and keeping in view the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is observed that complainant has surrendered the connection on 16.09.2019 and has made requests to the opposite parties on dated 27.11.2019 and 07.09.2021 for refund of security amount. Moreover cheque issued by the department on dated 14.09.2021 was outdated and was not encashed by the bank. Complainant has also stated that he visited the office of opposite parties many times and also visited the office of BSNL, Ambala for taking the refund of his security and had to pay the fare to Ambala. It is also on record that the payment has been made after 3 years i.e. only after filing the present complaint. Hence it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) on account of harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay Rs.50/- per week to the complainant from the date of decision i.e. 06.03.2023 till its realization in addition to the alleged amount of Rs.6000/-.
5. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.03.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
