MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED vs MAHESH NAITHANI

THE present appeal has been filed, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), assailing the order of District Forum, Janakpuri, New Delhi dated 20.10.2000, passed in Complaint Case No. 2963/1999 entitled Sh. Mahesh Naithani v. General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited & Others.

THE relevant facts, necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent Shri Mahesh Naithani had applied for a telephone connection with the Maya Puri Telephone Exchange under OYT category and had deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 15,000/-. Accordingly telephone No. 5546509 was installed at his premises at B-434, Panchwati Apartments, F-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. After sometime the respondent applied for the shifting of the said telephone from Vikas Puri to his new residence at Malviya Nagar. THE appellant however failed to shift the same on the ground of non-availability of cables. Having no option left the respondent applied for cancellation of the telephone in question on 29.12.1998 and also requested for the refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 15,000/-. Since the appellant failed to refund the said amount, the respondent got a legal notice dated 23.8.1999, served on the appellant asking for the refund of security deposit together with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 29.12.1998. Since no response was received from the end of the appellant to the said legal notice the respondent was constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant to refund Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum calculated w.e.f. 29.12.1998 till date, together with pendente lite and future interest, as well as, Rs. 1,100/- as cost of legal notice and Rs. 7,500/- as cost of proceedings. THE respondent had also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience undergone by him. The defence of the appellant, in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum was that the telephone of the respondent could not be shifted to his new residence at Malviya Nagar on account of fact that the same was technically not feasible. As regards the refund of security deposit it was stated on behalf of the appellant that the respondent has failed to fulfil the mandatory requirement of submitting the requisite documents i.e., original demand note, last paid bill and proof of return of telephone instrument etc. despite reminder dated 10.5.1999. Therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

The learned District Forum on the basis of the material on record held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and directed the appellant to refund the security amount of Rs. 15,000/- after deducting the amount of Rs. 232/- and Rs. 421/-, due from the respondent on account of outstanding bills dated 16.6.1997 and 16.4.1998, together with interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 15.10.1999, the date of filing of the complaint, as well as, cost of Rs. 500/-.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant mainly on the ground that the refund of the amount of security deposit of Rs. 15,000/- was delayed on account of the own default of the respondent as he had failed to submit the copy of the last paid bill and there were outstanding bills against the said telephone connection. It was also contended that the telephone instrument was deposited by the respondent only on 29.4.1999 and despite reminder dated 10.5.1999 the appellant had failed to submit the required documents for the process of the refund of the security amount.

IN so far as the said contention of the appellant is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the telephone instrument, as well as, other requisite documents available with the respondent had been duly deposited with the appellant on 29.4.1999. Merely because some dues were outstanding in respect of the telephone in question, did not preclude the appellant from making the payment of the security amount after deducting the amount due. As such the contention of the appellant that the delay occurred on account of the own default of the respondent is devoid of force and as such is not tenable. Another contention raised by the appellant in the present appeal is, that as per rules in case of a telephone being surrendered within five years from the date of installation, the amount of refund cannot exceed 3/4 of the initial deposit made by the subscriber. Accordingly, the respondent, having surrendered his telephone within a period of five years, was not entitled to the refund of more than 3/4 of the security deposit and that too after deducting the outstanding dues in respect of bills payable by him. In this regard it is an admitted fact on behalf of the appellant that the telephone in question was surrendered by the respondent on account of fact that the appellant had been unable to shift the said telephone to his new residence at Malviya Nagar. In such a situation the respondent had no alternative but to surrender the telephone and since the surrender of the telephone was not a voluntary act on the part of the respondent, the appellant was not justified in deducting any amount from the security deposit. As such the said contention of the appellant is also not maintainable. The appellant has also challenged the award of the rate of interest and cost as being on the higher side. In view of the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded @ 15% per annum was indeed on the higher side and the ends of justice would be satisfied if the same is reduced to 9% per annum. In view of the above discussion the present appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the rate of interest awarded by the learned District Forum vide impugned order is reduced from 15% to 9% per annum. However the appellant is directed to comply with the directions contained in the impugned order as modified by this Commission within 30 days of the date of receipt of this order, failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to move an application under Section 25 or 27 of the Act, for implementation of the said orders, as he may be advised. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal partly allowed.