PRASANTA BANERJEE Vs. TAPAN KUMAR BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the order dated 31.12.2003 passed by the Kolkata District Forum, Unit -II, in the Forum Case No. 296/2002. The present appellant was the complainant before the Forum whereas the respondent was the O.P. The relevant facts, in brief, are stated hereunder:

(2.) THE petitioner (Shri H.K. Ray Basunia) was a resident in a flat of the rental housing estate and due to retirement from service, he shifted from the flat and handed over possession thereof to the Caretaker on 27.2.1998. He sent a letter to the O.P. for disconnecion of electricity supply to his meter and also for refund of the security deposit with interest on and from 27.2.1998. Despite several reminders, he did not receive the security deposit. Moreover, he received from the O.P. a bill of Rs. 9.00 in the month of March 1998 being the meter rent, and another bill in the month of April, 1998 claiming Rs. 562.00 for consumption of 316 units. Subsequently the OP by its letter dated 26.5.1998 preferred a claim of Rs. 910.46 being the electric charges for the month of April, 1998. The petitioner contended that the aforesaid claim of CESC was misleading as he was not in the possession of the flat in the months of March and April, 1998. The petitioner filed the case before the Forum with the prayer for refund of security deposit of Rs. 600.00 with interest @ 18% p.a. A compensation of Rs. 5,000.00 was also prayed for mental agony and harassment as well as cost of litigation.

(3.) THE O.P., CESC Ltd., contested the case by filing a W/O stating therein that the petitioner failed to file the original receipt in respect of the security deposit and the certificate of the Caretaker showing delivery of possession of the flat in question. It was contended by CESC that the meter of the petitioner was disconnected on 14.3.1998 and the petitioner had outstanding dues of Rs. 919.46 upto the date of disconnection. These outstanding dues after being adjusted against the security deposit, implied that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 288.09 to the CESC. The Forum on examining the records came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of the flat upto 27th February, 1998 and, accordingly, he was liable to pay the charges for consumption of elecrtricity upto 27th February, 1998. However, the Forum found the claim of CESC amounting to Rs. 919.46 as without any basis. Accordingly, the Forum directed the CESC to pay to the petitioner the security deposit money together with interest as per rules and procedure of the CESC less the charges in respect of actual consumption for the period from 7th February to 27th February, 1998. Being aggrieved by this order of the Forum, the petitioner has filed the present appeal before the Commission.