Reasons for not getting refundable security deposit for the surrendered telephone connection - Condonation of delay permitted for not filing the second appeal within 90 days due to Covid - Payment will be made as per the availability of fund
The appellant surrendered his telephone connection (Tel No. 2560-0982), a year back but he has not received his refundable security deposit. He has sought the following information in this regard:
- Provide the reasons for not getting his refundable security deposit.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 25.08.2022vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED007491729IN.
The DGM and CPIO vide written submissions dated 30.08.2022 submitted that the refund of Rs 861/- against the surrendered telephone no. 033-25600982 had already been approved on 25.11.2019. As BSNL was going through serious financial crisis since 2019 and although BSNL revival package was announced at the end of 2019, due to COVID related crisis and repeated lockdown, it is still to recover from the bad financial patch. Due to the above reason, all the payments including security deposit refund got abnormally delayed. The security refund cases are paid as and when BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi allots fund for the same keeping in view of the ageing of the refund cases.
He further summed up that, although approved in 2019, the payment of Rs 861/- was made on 08.02.2022 to the subscriber’s bank account no. 110001510386 (registered with BSNL) of ICICI bank, IFSC code: ICIC0001100 through online banking. The US and CPIO submitted that the delay in providing the reply was due to COVID 19.
The appellant in his second appeal mentioned that he was suffering from COVID and hence, failed to file the second appeal within 90 days. He requested for condonation of delay. The same was accordingly condoned.
The FAA vide order dated 03.02.2021 disposed of the appeal and held that as per JAOTR, refund of Rs 861/- has been approved on 25.11.2019 and the same will be credited in the customer’s account shortly. The CPIO had replied after the FAA’s order and on 11.02.2021 stated that payment will be made as per the availability of fund and serial number maintained at CSC. The information given was appropriate and as per the record. However, the CPIO failed to reply on time which is deplorable.
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is cautioned to be careful regarding the timelines prescribed under the Act. As far as the RTI application is concerned, the matter appears to be settled now and no further action is called for.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Citation: Manoj Kumar Paul v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in File no.: - CIC/BSNLD/A/2021/621094, Date of Decision: 02/09/2022