ANAND AMALADOSS S.J. vs Union of India

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 14th day of December, 1998 in O.P. No. 15/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South).

THE appellant is the complainant while the respondents are the opposite parties. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

The complainant, it appears, applied for a temporary telephone connection for a period of three months and he got it sanctioned for the period between 27.12.1995 and 26.3.1996. He was required to make a deposit of Rs. 8,000/-. The deposit so required to be made was also deposited by the complainant. The telephone connection was given for the said period and the telephone number is 4929245. After the expiry of the period, the complainant applied for the refund of the deposit amount made. The opposite parties by communication dated 2.7.1996 informed the complainant that the refund would be finalised by the Accounts Officer. Despite such a communication, no refund of the deposit amount was given to the complainant.

IN such a backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below praying for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 8,000/- with reasonable interest on and from 28.3.1996 besides compensation for mental agony and anguish suffered by him, alleging that the act of the opposite parties in not refunding the amount of the deposit would tantamount to deficiency in service on their part. The opposite parties in pith and substance contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. The payment of the deposit of Rs. 8,000/- by the complainant, however, was admitted. The accounts were finalised and on such finalisation of the accounts, it was found, after adjustment, the credit available was to the tune of Rs. 7,897/- only. Since, the complainant did not produce the original deposit receipt the refund could not be effected. The complaint as such is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that the act of the opposite parties in not refunding the admitted amount of Rs. 7,867/- to the complainant would tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is on the basis of the said direction, the Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 7,867/- without insisting any further document from him with costs of Rs. 500/- within one month from the date of its order. Aggrieved by the order as above, the complainant resorted to the present action contending that though the Forum below held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, yet it did not grant either interest at a reasonable rate for the amount due to the complainant by the opposite parties or compensation quantified in a specified sum for the mental agony and anguish said to have been suffered by him. The present action had been filed by the complainant as a party-in-person. On service of process, the respondents/opposite parties entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. M.K. Jayakaran.

THE complainant appearing as a party-in-person sent a communication through post to this Commission praying for the disposal of the appeal in his absence by the perusal of the materials placed on record. When the matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel Mr. M.K. Jayakaran appearing for the respondents/opposite parties was called absent and no representation was made on his behalf. We are, however, inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits after perusal of the materials placed on record and that is exactly what we have done in this action.

THERE is no pale of controversy that the appellant/complainant asked for a temporary telephone connection for a period of three months and he got it sanctioned for the period between 27.12.1995 and 26.3.1996. For the telephone connection to be him to him, the opposite parties required an amount of Rs. 8,000/- to be deposited and consequently the appellant/complainant deposited the amount. The telephone service connection was also given to the appellant/complainant and the telephone number was 4929245. After the expiry of the period, the appellant/complainant prayed for the refund of the deposit amount. Though the opposite parties were willing to refund the deposit amount after the finalisation of the accounts, yet they delayed the matter for unduly long driving the appellant/complainant to seek redressal before the Forum below. What the complainant insists in this appeal is that though the Forum below recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, yet the non-grant of any compensation quantified in a specified sum for the mental agony and anguish said to have been suffered by him or the award of interest at the reasonable sum for the sum due to him is not proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The claim so put forward by the appellant/complainant is perfectly justifiable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Once the Forum below recorded a finding of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, it behoves upon it either to grant interest at the reasonable rate for the sum due to the appellant/complainant or compensation quantified in a specified sum for the mental agony and anguish said to have been suffered by him. The Forum below did not grant any one of those two things. There is also no challenge of the order of the Forum below as respects the findings that there was deficiency in service on their part. We are also satisfied on perusal of the materials placed on record that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in the sense of not effecting the refund of the amount of Rs. 7,867/- to the complainant for unduly long. We, therefore, direct the opposite parties to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of the deposit money due to the complainant, namely Rs. 7,867/- on and from 28.3.1996 till realisation. The interest thus granted on the sum of money due to the complainant would be more adequate than the amount of compensation grantable in a specified sum for the mental agony and anguish said to have been suffered by him. In this view of the matter, no award of compensation is granted for mental agony and anguish said to have been suffered by him except the grant of interest as stated above.

As such, the order of the Forum below would get modified. Thus, the respondents/opposite parties would be liable to pay to the appellant/complainant a sum of Rs. 7,867/- with interest at 9% per annum on and from 28.3.1996 till realisation apart from payment of cost of Rs. 500/- as awarded by the Forum below which is reasonable not calling for interference. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. It is, however, made crystal clear that the respondents/opposite parties are required to comply with the order of ours as above within a month from the date of receipt of the order or otherwise the appellant/complainant would be entitled to seek the jurisdiction of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, "the Act, 1986"].

THE appeal is thus disposed of. Appeal disposed of. S