MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. MAHESH NAITHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed, under Sec.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/s. General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Others.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.