Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from this Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The facts of this complaint is as follows:- The complainant had purchased an IT card No.80602044399771 of the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party on 9.5.06. The face value of the card is Rs.100/- and the complainant is entitled to make calls for the value of Rs.90.74. On the next day, he made a call to Saudi Arabia. After that call, he got message stating his balance is Rs.69.84. On the next day, when he tried to make a call to Bangalore, he got the message that he had only a balance of Rs.6.04. Thereafter, he made a complaint before the BSNL office, Pathanamthitta stating that he had lost Rs.63.80 from the IT card without making any calls. But the BSNL authorities has not redressed his grievances so far. Therefore, he filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting an order from this Forum allowing him to realise an amount of Rs.63.80 lost by him with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- for the deficiency of service from the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 3. The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions:- BSNL IT cards are being sold out on demand through out the franchises appointed through out the country. It is the duty and responsibility of the purchaser of an IT card to keep the code number of the card in secret. The call details with regard to the calls made by the complainant using the above said IT card shows that the complainant had made two calls to Saudi Arabia. The 1st call was made on 11.3.06 at 16.41.44 and the call charge is Rs.20.90 and the 2nd call was made on the same day itself at 22.01.41 to the same number and the call charges for that call is Rs.63.80. The first call was made by him from telephone No.2326006 at Pathanamthitta provided in the name of Beena Tourist Home, Kadammanitta Cross Road, Pathanamthitta and the second call was made by him from the complainant’s own telephone No.251113. Since the called numbers are one and the same, and the second call is seen made from the telephone provided in the name of the petitioner himself and the first call is admitted by the complainant, both the calls were made either by the complainant himself or with the knowledge of the complainant. In the circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence they pray for the dismissal of the complaint. The 2nd opposite party was not turned up. Hence the 2nd opposite party was declared exparte and as such. <br /> 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:<br /> <br /> (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?<br /> (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for<br /> in the complaint?<br /> (3) Reliefs and Costs?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence of this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by the complainant were marked as Ext.A1 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. The 1st opposite party cross-examined the complainant and they have not adduced any other evidence.<br /> <br /> 6. Point Nos.1 to 3:- The complainant’s case as per the complaint and proof affidavit is that he had purchased an IT card of the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party on 9.5.06. The value of the call allowed in the IT card is Rs.90.74 and the complainant made a single call by using the card for an amount of Rs.20.90. On the next day the balance in the card was found as Rs.6.04. An amount of Rs.63.80 was lost from the card without making any calls by using the said card. The complainant had lost his money due to the deficiency of service of the 1st opposite party. Therefore, he is entitled to get the lost money and compensation and cost for the deficiency of service from the opposite party. The complainant prays for allowing the complaint. In order to prove the complainant’s case, he had filed the proof affidavit and deposed before this Forum as PW1 and the IT card purchased by PW1 was produced and it was marked as Ext.A1. But as per the written version and the call details submitted by the 1st opposite party, the complainant had made calls using Ext.A1 card on 11.3.06. But the complainant’s case is that he purchased the Ext.A1 card on 9.5.06. The particular date of the calls of the complainant is also not mentioned by the complainant anywhere. The written version and call details were submitted by the 1st opposite party even before the filing of the proof affidavit of the complainant and the examination of the complainant. The complainant has not made any attempt to clarify the difference of the dates mentioned earlier. The PSN number of the IT card noted in the call details report and in Ext.A1 is one and the same. So the averment in the complaint and proof affidavit with regard to the date of purchase of IT card is not correct. The date of filing of this complaint is on 28.3.06. So the averments in the complaint and the proof affidavit are not correct with regard to the date of purchase of Ext.A1 card. Hence, we are constrained to accept and rely the date of call as 11.3.06 as shown in the call details report submitted by the opposite party. As per the complaint and the proof affidavit PW1 had admitted the first call seen in the call detailed report. The 2nd call seen in the call detailed report was made from the complainant’s own telephone connection. A call from the complainant’s telephone cannot be made without the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant had also not challenged the genuineness and correctness of the call details report. More over, the complainant had failed to establish his complaint with cogent evidence. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service from the part of the 1st opposite party and hence this complaint is not allowable.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result, this C.C is dismissed. No cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of November, 2008.<br /> <br /> (Sd/-)<br /> Jacob Stephen,<br /> (President)<br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> Appendix:<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : Varghese Babu<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Calling Card.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.<br /> <br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br />