GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM DISTT.,CHANDIGARH vs LT.COL.S.S.SETHI (RETD.)

THIS petition is directed against the order dated 10.8.92 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, U.T. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and are summarised as below.

THE complainant (respondent herein) was allotted a new telephone in February, 1991 in the NON-OYT Category. In the bill which he subsequently received for the period ending the 30th of June, 1991, two demands were raised against him on account of the rental of the telephone: (i) Rs. 1,200/- as advance rent for one year @ Rs. 100/- per mensem, to be retained till the telephone is finally closed; (ii) Rs. 200/- as advance rent for the next two months (the billing period: in this case July-August, 1991).

The complainant felt that the practice of the Telephone Department amounted to demanding two advances for the same service /purpose and was not justified. In his opinion it was necessary-- that the Department should atleast pay reasonable interest on the advance rental which it collected and kept right till the end. With this grievance he moved the District Forum, Chandigarh. The complaint was allowed and the District Forum directed the appellant Department-revision petitioner i.e. General Manager Telecom District Chandigarh to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit of Rs. 1,200/- till the time the amount was returned.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the revision petitioner approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. Despite persuasive arguments of the revision petitioner, the State Commission declined to interfere in the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. That is how the petitioner has approached this Commission by way of a revision petition filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is under disposal.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Sudan, Counsel for the petitioner contended that Rule 77(1) of the Rules governing the calculation of rentals and other charges in the Post and Telegraphs Manual, Volume-XII did not stipulate that the subscriber would be allowed interest on the amount which was to be paid by the subscribers as one time advance. One year advance was by way of security, which was refundable to the subscriber after adjustment of any outstanding dues against him when the subscriber''s telephone was finally closed. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Commission passed in Revision Petition No. 482 of 1992, decided on 10th November, 1993. According to him the District Forum as well as the State Commission committed legal error in holding that the respondent-complainant was entitled to interest at the rate of 6% till such time the amount was not refunded to him. We have considered the contention raised on behalf of the appellant and perused the records. In order to appreciate the controversy between the party, it will be convenient to reproduce Rule 77(1) of the Post and Telegraphs Manual, Volume-XII. "With effect from 1st January, 1968, all telephone subscribers in measured rate areas to whom telephone connections under NON-OYT Scheme are provided, will be required to pay in addition to the advance of one quarter''s rent, advance of one year''s rental applicable to the station concerned, before the connections are provided. The one year''s advance rental will not be adjusted against any bill during the currency of the telephone. When the subscriber''s telephone is finally closed for whatever reasons, this advance rental will be refunded to him after adjustment of any outstanding dues."

From the reading of the Rule, it appears that this amount of one year advance is required to be paid by way of security deposit. This advance rental is refundable to the subscriber when the telephone is finally closed. This Commission had an occasion to deal with an identical question in Revision Petition No. 482 of 1992 (Union of India and Anr. v. Hardev Singh) decided on 10th November, 1993. The facts of case in Hardev Singh (supra) were that Hardev Singh filed a complaint in the District Forum, Sangrur, alleging that he was subscriber of telephone No. 2964 and had received inflated bills dated 1st September, 1990 and 1st November, 1990 from the Telephone Department for the amounts of Rs. 545/- and Rs. 472/- respectively. The complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to make enquiries regarding the excess billing. It was also averred that he may be awarded interest on the security of Rs. 800/- deposited with the Telephone Department. The District Forum directed the Department to pay interest at the rate of 11% on the amount of Rs. 800/- with effect from the date of application till the amount was refunded. The Department filed an appeal before the State Commission but without success. The Department approached this Commission by way of revision petition. The question that arose for determination was whether the Department was liable to pay interest on the amount of security deposit. This Commission relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. etc. v. A.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. etc., came to the conclusion that the order of the State Commission and the District Forum in so far as they related to the direction for payment of interest on security amount, were unsustainable in law and were set aside. The observations made by this Commission in case of Hardev Singh (supra) are reproduced below : ''The question is whether the Department is liable to pay interest on the security amount, when there is no provision for the same in the Rules. The matter has been discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in case Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. etc. v. A.P. State Electricity Board and Anr. etc. etc., Civil Anneal Nos. 2117 to 2122 of 1993 etc. etc., decided on 15th April, 1993. The case relates to payment of interest on the deposit of security demanded by the various State Electricity Board from the consumers. Some Boards have made provision for payment of interest in the Rules while the Rules of some Boards had no such provision or the Rules specifically provided that no interest is payable on the security amount. In case where interest on security amount was provided under the Rules, the challenge was made to the lower rate of interest. In other cases the contention was that since the security amount was being retained by the Boards and utilised, it was found to give interest. All those contentions were overruled by the Supreme Court, It is not necessary, to reproduce the various observations made by that Court. It was held that the amount cannot be held as fixed deposit of consumers nor could the Boards deposit the amounts in fixed deposit to earn inte-rest. It was also held that in the nature of things the consumer is supplied energy on credit. The security amount is hardly sufficient to secure payment to the Board by the time the formal bail is raised on the consumer. About the nature of deposit it was remarked that though it is called security deposit it is really an adjustable payment of consumption charges. It was further remarked that there was no statutory provision, which casts an obligation on the Board to pay interest on security deposit nor such claim can be founded under the Interest Act, 1978 or under common law or equity. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying in that case that it is Electricity Boards which should be entitled to receive interest on energy supplied to consumers on credit as the consumers enjoyed a credit facility for the supply of energy. The same principle applies to the present case."

IN our opinion, the case in the hand is squarely covered by the decision of this Commission in the case of Hardev Singh (supra). Following the decision of this Commission, we have no hesitation mho] ding that the respondent is not entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 1,200/- paid as advance rent. As a result this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the District Forum as well as by the State Commission are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.