Sri. K. Gopalan: President<br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay back the service charge paid with compensation.<br /> The complainant’s case in brief are as follows. The STD booth in front of the Payyannur Co.operative Bank run by K.V. Mani levied Rs 2/- each for two local calls to the numbers 2811477 and 2811905 from the complainant on 14.8.2003. When it was questioned the opposite party abused the complainant. Complainant prays for an order for returning of this amount unreasonably charged from the complainant together with compensation.<br /> Persuant to the summons issued by the Forum opposite party filed version denying the entire allegations. The contentions of the opposite party in brief are as follows. The opposite party denied the allegation in the complaint that he had collected service charge disregarding the order of the High Court and the General Manager , BSNL. He has also denied that he has abused the complainant, when he was questioned about collection of Rs 2/-as service charge. The complainant should be put to strict proof regarding his allegation that he had made phone calls to 2811477 and 2811905 through the STD booth of this opposite party. Opposite party contended that even if the allegation is true, there is no illegality in collecting service charge for the alleged calls made by the complainant as the calls made by him was to a different SDCA situated at Kannur whereas the STD booth is situated in Taliparamba SDCA. There is no order either from the High Court or BSNL department against collection of service charge at RS 2/- for inter SDCA calls. There is no unfair trade practice followed by the opposite party in collecting Rs 2/-as service charge. There was no order or publication stating that service charge cannot be availed from persons calling from STD booth having a duration of less than 180 second. . Opposite party never had an occasion to abuse the complainant or any person on the issue of collecting service charge Complainant is a tool for ill motivated gains.. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or damages and he is not entitled for any compensation. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious. Complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as prayed in the complaint?<br /> The evidence consist of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1, DW1 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A5 and Ext. B1.<br /> ISSUES 1 & 2: The complainant alleges that he had been levied Rs 2/- each service charge of 2 local calls. But no documents proves that the complainant had made any such calls from the opposite party’s Booth. Exts. A1 to A3 is not sufficient to prove that the complainant had made calls from opposite party’s booth on 14.8.2008. No other witness except PW1 adduced evidence to prove that complaint. Complainant has to prove first of all there is such alleged calls has been made by the complainant. Atleast the person to whom the call was made could have been examined. Complainant alleged that he had made 2 calls but both of them were not examined. No attempts has been made on the part of the complainant to call anyone of these witnesses before the Forum. The second important allegation of the complainant was that he was abused and defamed by the opposite party in front of others. Certainly there will be lot of people in such a places of telephone booths and so many people might have been witnessed this incident. Complainant was not able to bring even single witness before the Forum so as to prove complainant was abused by the opposite party. No attempts have been made to present anyone of the witness to prove the case of the complainant. Hence it can be seen that complainant is not able to convince the Forum that complainant has made such alleged calls from the Booth of opposite party and opposite party had abused him infront of others. Without proving this there is no meaning in going to other aspect so as to establish unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. If this aspect stands not proved it is not possible to prove that the opposite party levied service charge from the complainant General allegation is not sufficient . It has to be proved that the opposite party has levied service charges from the complainant. Hence we are of opinion that this complaint has no substance so as to establish unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the issues are found against the complainant.<br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- MEMBER Sd/-PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Bill no.55 dt. 14.8.2003<br /> A2. Bill no. 56 dt. 14.8.2003<br /> A3. Bill no. 67 dt. 17.7.2004<br /> A4. Copy of intimation issued by Ass. Director General PHB dt. 22.3.2001<br /> A5. Copy of intimation issued by Area Manager, Telecom dt.29.7.2003<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the opposite party<br /> B1. Photo copy of order in Appeal No.3477-3478/2003 issued by Supreme Court dt. 6.8.2003.<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party<br /> DW1. K.V. Mani.<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> <br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT <br /> <br />