Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 21st day of April ,2005
C.D.No. 57/2004
K.Ranga Rao,
S/o. Late K.Narasimha Rao,
R/o. Yemmiganur,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. Proprietor,
Sri Krishna Fancy and general Stores,
D.No. 43-16, N.R Peta,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.1
2.The Managing Director,
Bharati Moble Ltd,
2nd floor, Block-A my home
ty coom, Kundanbash,
Begum pet,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party No.2
represented by his counsel
Advocate.
O R D E R
(Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is field under section 12 of C.P. Act ,1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 241/- for the pre paid Airtel Magic card, Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has purchased Airtel Magic prepaid card of Rs. 216/- value, the number of it is 57112376103815528. After using the value as on 24.5.2004 was Rs. 18.55. At about 9.30 A.M the complainant purchased another pre paired card No. 2975888855781888 of the said Company with opposite party No.1 of Rs. 108/- with talk value Rs. 50/-. When the complainant recharged the said card at about 13.30 hours on the same day, but the balance shown as Rs. 68.55. The next day it self the balance is shown as 0.00 when the complainant dialed 123 for information, it revealed that there was no service to the cell No. 900, 98490, 98490 even though the complainant has got to his credit Rs. 68.55, thus the complainant has suffered without cell service for more than 40 days and further the complainant spent and Rs. 100/- to contact personally the opposite party No.1, who was at Kurnool for rectification of the said defect but invain. This attitude of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and liable to pay Rs.241/- which he pre-paid towards Airtel Magic card, Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs this case.
3. The complainant in support of its case placed reliance on the document
i.e Airtel reaching card for Rs. 108/- bearing No. 12366217985614 and recharge No. 2975888855761888, besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments, interrogatories and the above document is marked as Ex A.1 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 neither appeared before this forum nor contested the case of the complainant filing any written version with any defence and there by remained exprate and opposite party No. 2 appeared before this Forum through their standing counsel and filed sworn affidavit and replied to the interrogatories to the complainant denying all the material averments made in the complaint.
5. The written version averments and in reiteration of it the sworn affidavit of Op No.2 submits that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in Law or on facts and it is incomplete, baseless and devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed in limine and further submits that the complainant has failed to prove that he is a bonafide customer of the opposite party No.2. The complainant has no where mentioned his mobile number in the complaint so as to prove that he is the customer of this opposite party and that without the mobile number this opposite party cannot file its objections in detail against the allegations of the complainant. The OP NO.2 has further submits that the procedure of availing services of this opposite party by any subscriber/ customer as this opposite party is one of the cellular mobile telephone provider in the State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of a licence granted by the Government of India, Department of Telecommunication. Any subscriber desiring of a connection of the cellular Phone may enter into a contract with the opposite party No.2 upon which SIM card is given to the subscriber which has an exclusive mobile number. Each customer shall be identified by this opposite party only by the mobile number allotted to that customer. The services are being provided by the opposite party in two categories viz. Post paid services and prepaid services. For availing any of the said two services the customer has enter into an agreement with this opposite party No.2. The pre paired Phone connection can be taken by making advance payment for the cash card. It provides for making and receiving calls and other services provided by this opposite party like SMS services etc, to the extent of the limit fixed in the pre paired card opted for in this category. The subscriber can avail the services and limit fixed in the cared and the same would keep reducing to the extent of the usage until of the period of validity is over or limit fixed in the card has been exhausted whichever is earlier and whenever the limit of the pre paid cash card is exhausted it automatically gets deactivated. The subscriber can get a recharges coupon on the basis of which his connection continues and the subscriber can continue to use the same identification number. Re-charge coupon can be obtained by any person from this opposite party No.2’s distributors by paying the re-charge value. For obtaining the recharge coupon the person need not show any identity or furnish mobile numbers. So it is clear from the above that every customer shall have a mobile no and he / she can be identified by that number only. As it is clearly from the above facts in the absence of complainant’s mobile number, SIM card and the date of activation etc the complainant cannot prove any deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.2 towards the complainant alleged and with which the complainant approached this Forum for its redressal.
6. The Ex A.1 is the Airtel Magic pre paid card with maximum service value Rs. 108/-( inclusive of calling value ) Processing fee Rs. 50/- and service tax Rs. 8/- and the same as to be used before 7 days from the activation date. The serial No is 12366217985614 and the recharge No is. 2975888855761888. The complainant except this, no other proof filed i.e such as mobile number which he possessed and SIM card number and the proof that the said re charged card was purchased from the opposite party No.1 and evidence or record if any that the said opposite party No.1 was authorized dealer of opposite party No.2 to sell the re charged card pertaining to the opposite party No.2’s Company. Further the complainant failed to produce the contract agreement which he entered with the opposite party No.2 and other cogent material to prove his case beyond doubt. Thus by merely filing the said Ex A.1 by the complainant without any proof or evidence does not mean that the contents there on are necessarily true and make liable the opposite parties to pay the amounts, which the complainant claimed in its complaint.
7. Having regard to over all consideration, there is no hesitation to hold that the complaint has miserably failed to substantiation any deficiency against the opposite parties.
8. Therefore, in the result the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the open Court this the 21st day of April. 2005
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
