SDO, TELEPHONE vs SUDARSHAN BHANDARI

H.S. Brar, President

IT''s an appeal against the order dated 27.4.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum). Briefly stated the facts are that at the time of installation of his telephone, the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had deposited a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as security refundable on surrender of the telephone. On complainant''s transfer to Mohali, he had applied vide application dated 17.3.1998 for the surrender of the said telephone and also for refund of the security amount. Amount of security was not refunded to him despite disconnection of the telephone on surrender though he had visited the office of the appellant-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) several times. He had to suffer a lot of harrassment due to the opposite parties and the complainant also claimed refund of the security amount of Rs. 8,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum coupled with damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- on account of harassment caused to him along with costs of the complaint.

Opposite Parties raised preliminary objections saying that the complaint was not maintainable for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. No cause of action had arisen to the complainant for the bare reason that he had neither applied nor approached for the refund of the security amount to the Competent Authority, namely, Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Telecome, who was maintaining the revenue accounts. Designation of respondent No. 2-opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter called opposite party No. 2) as deciphered in the complaint too was incorrect, according to the opposite parties. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as security and the amount was refundable after deduction of 25% minimum amount in case telephone provided was closed permanently within five years. It is also admitted that the complainant had applied to the SDO, Telephones, Ropar for disconnection of the telephone permanently on account of his transfer to Mohali and that the telephone was permanently disconnected on 27.3.1998 after Advice Note dated 18.3.1998. It was prayed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

AFTER hearing the parties and after the perusal of the record, the District Forum allowed the complaint. The opposite parties were directed to make payment of the interest amount on delayed payment @ 18% per annum from 27.4.1998 till cheques were issued in favour of the complainant. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as compensation and a sum of Rs. 500/- was awarded as costs of the litigation. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite parties and have gone through the record of the case as well as the impugned order of the District Forum.

PRELIMINARY objections made by the opposite parties were dismissed by the District Forum and validly so. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the District Forum dismissing the preliminary objections is reproduced hereunder : "4. Tone and tenor of the pleas adopted by opposite parties in thwarting the claim of the complainant appears to be that of defiance when one finds that they thought fit to take resort to hyper-technicalities against the apparent genuine claim for the refundable security amount despite disconnection of telephone permanently on surrender when one finds that preliminary objections raised were that complaint filed was not maintainable for mis-joinder/non-joinder of the parties or that the complainant had not applied for the refund to the Senior Accounts Officer who maintained the revenue accounts or that designation of opposite party No. 2 as deciphered was incorrect as it should have been as Divisional Engineer, Telecom (Mtee) particularly when opposite parties had been able to work out the refundable amount of the complainant on receipt of the notice of the complaint by this Forum and also was able to issue two cheques referred above even before filing Written Statement in the Forum. Matter does not end here. The record shows that the complainant had made composite application dated 17.3.1998 photostat whereof is Ex. A-1 addressed to the SDO, Telephones, Ropar requesting for disconnection of the telephone on surrender and also for refund of security amount after deducting telephone bills, if any. This composite application thus was required to be dealt with, in normal course not indissection; rather the claim for refund of security should have been processed without delay on disconnection of the telephone. Even if it be taken, may be remotely, that it was Revenue Accountant who was to deal with the case of refundable security he was not alien to the opposite parties and office of SDO, Telephones could easily refer the matter to him of its own or would have apprised the complainant to the minimum hyper-technical aspect that he would have to apply separately to the Senior Accounts Officer for the refund. PRELIMINARY objections taken by the opposite parties in opposing the claim of the complainant are thus dismissed, the same having least foundation." The above said order of the District Forum is based on cogent reasons. Even the learned Counsel for the appellants has not been able to make any dent in the reasoning adopted by the District Forum while dismissing the preliminary objections. We, thus, affirm the order of the District Forum on this point. While deciding the matter on merits. District Forum observed as under : "5. Now, we would like to advert to the claim of the complainant on merit. Ex. A-1 is the photostat of application dated 17.3.1998 under the signatures of the complainant addressed to the SDO, Telephones, Ropar whereby he surrendered his telephone No. 74307 further craving for its disconnection with immediate effect as well as refund of the security deposit after deducting the amount of telephone bills, if any. This fact is duly divulged in the complaint filed before this Forum as well as his affidavit proved on record as Ex. A-3. Ex. A-2 is the photostat of demand made by the opposite parties for the deposit of Rs. 8,000/- as security followed by compliance of the same by the complainant as there is least controversy on this aspect. Furthermore, disconnection of telephone on application had come in vogue on 27.3.1998 as contended by opposite parties themselves in the written statement filed but amazingly enough refund due was not made despite various visits to the office by the complainant as solemnly affirmed in affidavit Ex. A-3 in line with pleas enumerated in the complaint filed and that the complainant ultimately had to approach the Consumer Forum for redressal of the grievance on 22.7.1999 i.e. after waiting for a period of about one year four months. It thus, cannot be said that there was no deficiency of service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act on the part of the opposite parties regarding refund involved. 6. Ex. R-6 is the Refund Calculation Sheet as prepared by Senior Accounts Officer on the basis whereof sum of Rs. 5,083/- towards refundable amount was refunded vide two distinct cheques for Rs. 4,848/-, Rs. 235/- as referred above. Calculation Sheet Ex. R-6 speaks of deduction of Rs. 2,000/- towards Registration Fee as well as outstanding balance of Rs. 41/-, Rs. 460/-, Rs. 416/- pertaining to bills for the months of 3/1997, 7/1997, 3/1998 respectively. Calculation Sheet Ex. R-6, to our mind, is simply exhaustive and does not call for ''ifs and buts'' and hence is taken to be correct. However, by all means there is a case for interest on the delayed payment @ 18% per annum from 27.4.1998 at least, there being reasonable allowance of one month for the opposite parties for processing the case for refund after disconnection on 27.3.1998. Interest on delayed payment thus would accrue from 27.4.1998 till cheques were issued. It is ordered accordingly."

We have gone through the order of the District Forum on merits. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Deposit of Rs. 8,000/- as security is not denied. Disconnection of telephone on the application of the complainant had come in vogue on 27.3.1998 as contended by the opposite parties themselves in their written statement. It''s also undisputed that the security was not refunded to the complainant despite various visits to the office by him. He has so affirmed in his affidavit Ex. A-3. It was only after the complainant had approached the Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievance on 22.7.1999 i.e. after waiting for a period of about one year four months, that there was some activity on the part of the opposite parties. In the circumstances of the case it has rightly been held by the District Forum that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with regard to delayed refund involved in the case. Thus, this finding of the District Forum is also affirmed. District Forum has also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. We are reluctant to confirm this finding of the District Forum because the complainant was allowed interest on delayed payment at the rate of 18% per annum from 27.4.1998 till cheques were issued in favour of the complainant. This finding of the District Forum awarding Rs. 1,000/- is, thus, not upheld by us in appeal.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant-opposite parties has also challenged the rate of interest. We do not find any force in the arguments of the learned Counsel. Interest at the rate of 18% per annum has been awarded, which in our view is not on the higher side because it can include the compensation, which the opposite parties were liable to make to the complainant in lieu of mental agony, torture, inconvenience and harassment suffered by the complainant at the hands of the opposite parties. Except one variation made by us in the order of the District Forum, we do not find any flaw in the order of the District Forum. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed subject to a slight variation as made above. Appeal dismissed.