SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> The opposite party is conducting a mobile collection centre near Deepak Footwares, Rajakkadu in the name and style Mobile Collection Centre. There was an advertisement given by the opposite party in front of his shop telling that they are receiving application for BSNL pre-paid mobile phone connection and delivering SIM cards and recharge coupons immediately. The complainant approached the opposite party on 19/05/2005and an application was given for the same. Complainant paid Rs.560/- to the opposite party for the purpose of getting the SIM card and his name was listed as 18th number in the priority list. A receipt was given by the opposite party for the amount. After several months there was no intimation from the part of the opposite party. So the complainant enquired about the same and it is revealed that the opposite party is supplying SIM card without considering the priority list. A complaint was given on 9/12/2005 in the opposite party's shop but they asked for another 100 rupes as service charge. The complainant denied the same and went back from the opposite party's shop. On 14/12/2005 the complainant complained the matter to the Secretary, Consumer's Association, Rajakkadu and the Secretary, Consumers's Association intimated the same to the opposite party. The opposite party offered to gie telephone connectiion and Rs.150/- as compensation to the complainant. But due to the harassment from the part of the opposite party and long delay of 7 months after giving application, the complainant was not ready to compromise the matter with the opposite party. So alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed before the Forum for geting compensation under various heads.<br /> <br /> 2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is denied that the complainant approached the opposite party on 19/05/2005 and an application was given for cell phone connection. The opposite party never received Rs.560/- from the complainant nor made his name in the priority list as 18th number. Not even a single money was received from the complainant by the opposite party and the receipt produced by the complainant is a forged one. There is no such intimation was given to the Secretary, Consumer Association by the opposite party telling that they are ready to settle the matter by giving the cell phone connection and Rs.150/- as compensation. The opposite party is not an agent of BSNL and the opposite party is not authorised and not having any right to give the cell phone connection. Distribution of cell phone SIM cards and connection is the absolute duty of BSNL and the opposite party is not having any connection with it. The opposite party and the complainant were friends. In January 2005 the complainant bought a mobile phone from the opposite party by paying Rs.1,250/-. But after 3 months because of non-availability of SIM cards the complainant approached the opposite party for return of the money by taking back the mobile phone which he bought from the opposite party. The opposite party denied the same and so the complainant is keeping enimity with the opposite party. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party and the complaint is not at all maintainable. <br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- The main dispute is whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party or whether he paid Rs.560/- to the opposite party for getting a BSNL pre-paid mobile connection. Ext.P1 is the receipt produced by the complainant in which it is written that Shaju, Karukedathu, Rajakkadu P.O, Rs.560/-, a signature of the opposite party and a date written as 1/09/2005 on the other side. The complainant's allegation is that the receipt was given by the opposite party at the time of payment of Rs.560/- to the opposite party. Ext.P2 is the letter written by the opposite party addressed to the Secretary, Consumer Association, Rajakkadu stating that the opposite party is ready to supply the SIM card to the complainant, also ready to give a compensation of Rs.150/- for the long delay. It is also written his apology for the long delay. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the difference in date in the complaint and in the document is only a clerical error. PW2 is the friend of the complainant. He delivered that he also applied for the cell phone connection through the opposite party and he got the same after 1 1/2 months. He know the fact that the complainant also applied for cell phone connection through the opposite party and the complainant not yet received the connection. PW3 is the Secretary, consumer Association, Rajakkadu. He delivered that a complaint is received from the complainant to his association. The Association noticed the matter to the opposite party. The opposite party and his father approached PW3 and Ext.P2 was given. PW3 stated that the signature in Ext.P2 is of the opposite party. The opposite party denies his signature in Exts.P1 and P2. The signature of opposite party is forged by the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW3. The signature of the opposite party in Ext.P1 receipt and the signature in Ext.P2 are similar. But the signature in the written version is quite different. If opposite party's signature in the document produced by the complainant are forged, why the opposite party did not take any steps to prove the same. As per the order from High Court in catena of judgements, it is decided that one who alleges forgery he must prove the same. So in this case no complaint is filed by the opposite party in anywhere against the complainant to prove the forgery. The evidence of PW2 shows that the complainant booked a cell phone connection before the opposite party by paying Rs,560/-. It leads a conclusion that alleging forgery is not a good defence for the case without evidence. So the act of the opposite party for the deliberate delay in supplying the SIM card from BSNL is a gross deficiency from the part of opposite party. So we think it is better to give back the money received from the complainant by the opposite party and giving the SIM card, because the opposite paty is not the absolute authority for giving SIM card, only working as an agent of BSNL. Also Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the long delay caused by the opposite party, mental agony and for the harassment from the part of the opposite party and Rs.500/- as the costs of this petition.<br /> <br /> In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite patry is directed to give back Rs.560/- which is received by the opposite party from the complainant and also Rs.2,500/- as compensation for the mental agony, for the harassment from the part of the opposite party and for the costs of this petition, within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the Ist day of July, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />