UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAROJINI DAS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.