TELECOMMUNICATION, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. RAMA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 12.4.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and the OP -appellants were directed to refund the security amount to the complainant - respondent along with a compensation of Rs. 1,000 and litigation costs of Rs. 1,000. The OP - appellants were held free to deduct the amount from the security amount of Rs. 3,000 which may have already been paid to the complainant - respondent through a cheque.

(2.) SHRI Brijesh Gaur, son of the complainant -respondent had deposited Rs. 3,000 as security and obtained the telephone connection from the OP -appellants in 1995. Brijesh Gaur has died and is succeeded by the complainant. Her contention is that she requested the OP -appellew\t8 pn 5,8.2005 to disconnect the telephone connection. She paid the bill amount of Rs. 1013 but even then the remaining amount of the security was not refunded to her. She even issued a notice but to no effect. She then filed the present complaint claiming refund of the security amount of Rs. 3,000 and a compensation of Rs. 10,000 along with litigation costs.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the OP - appellants admitting that Brijesh Gaur had deposited the amount of Rs. 3,000 on 12.9.1995 and a telephone connection was issued to him. According to them, the security amount included the rent for a year and the bill charges for the first month and in this manner, the security amount remained Rs. 1,650 which was payable to the complainant -respondent. It was contended that the complainant -respondent was liable to pay Rs. 279 as the bill dated 7.8.2005 and Rs. 666 as the supplementary bill dated 28.10.2005 and in this manner, only a sum of Rs. 705 remained to be paid regarding which a cheque was issued to the complainant on 18.11.2005. Subsequently, it was found that earlier the bill for Rs. 360 had already been paid and was wrongly debited to the telephone account which amount was refunded on 14.2.2006. The contention of the OP -appellants is that nothing is due from them out of the security amount which has since been adjusted and, therefore, the complaint be dismissed.