Union of India vs SAROJINI DAS

THIS is an appeal by the opposite parties against a direction to them under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act (for brevity, ''the Act'').

COMPLAINANT is a subscriber of telephone bearing number 30674-Ck. She voluntarily surrendered her telephone on 7-8-90. She authorized Nityananda Kar to receive the refund amount of security deposit, i.e. Rs. 1,000/- on her behalf. Accepting the request, telephone was disconnected on 22.8.90. However, the security was not released in spite of reminders sent on 17.9.90, 24.1.91, 7.5.91 and 20-5-91. Finding no way out this complaint was filed on 26-6-91 alleging deficiency in service in not returning the security deposit. Appellants in their reply stated that claim of complainant has already been finalized and she was requested to sent a stamp receipt for a sum of Rs. 1,070/-. There was delay since request of the Complainant was not a single item of work in the office and the request was considered along with others'' in regular course of official work. Due interest was also paid to the complainant. However, in spite of information given by the Counsel for the appellants that the amount has already been paid, the District Forum has directed payment of interest at the rate of 12% per cent from September ''90 till the amount is actually paid and a further sum of Rs. 20/- towards cost of postage and other sundry expenses.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the amount having been refunded before hearing of the complaint, District Forum ought to have held that complainant is not entitled to any further interest.

DELAY in refund of security when a telephone is surrendered, is a deficiency in service. In case the same is outcome of negligence of the appellants and complainant has suffered on that account, a direction can be given by the redressal agency under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. There is no dispute that telephone was disconnected on 22.8.90. Several reminders were sent for refund of the deposit. Opposite parties have not even given a courtesy reply acknowledging the same and intimating that action was being taken in the matter. On 16.1.91, opposite party No. 3 intimated the Complainant with reference to her letter dated 7.8.90 that the telephone bearing No. 3076-Ck has been closed permanently w.e.f. 22-8-90 and she is entitled to receive the security deposit along with interest, i.e. Rs. 1,070/-. Such long period to intimate that refund shall be made cannot be usual official delay. If the stages in which the letter was dealt with would have been brought to our notice, we could have located the table in the office where there was delay and could have found the cause for the same. We are certain that no employee, how so ever high his position may be, would tolerate if his salary for a month or even increment or efficiency bar is delayed for such a long time. What is true for self is true for others also. Unless this realization comes, suffering of consumers is inevitable. Delay in refund of the security deposit being a deficiency in service and no reply having been given in spite of reminders to the complainant, there is a clear case of negligence. District Forum has rightly gave a direction under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. There is, however, no assertion in respect of nature of suffering of complainant on account of deprivation of the amount of Rs. 1,000/-. On the letter dated 16-1-91, of the opposite party No. 3, authorized agent of complainant sought some clarification without receiving the amount. If a person would suffer on account of deprivation of amount, normal conduct would be to receive first whatever is offered and thereafter arbitrate for enhancing the amount. In this case, suffering of complainant is more on account of her authorized agent who has made all the correspondences. Complainant has not stated the authorized agent is a beneficiary of the service of refund. When complainant has remained silent and all the communications appear to have been made by the authorized agent, we are inclined to hold that there was no suffering of the complainant. Accordingly, while coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service, which was on account of the opposite parties in delaying the refund for about one year, no finding can be given in support of suffering of the complainant. In result, appeal is allowed. Direction of the District Forum is vacated. Appeal allowed.