Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed this complaint against three Opposite parties with his grievance that on 24.05.2007 one Deepak Gowda a representative of the Opposite parties apprised him the best reliance mobile service and sets and offered him service and took his application for the same, but did not take his signature to that application. On the same day, the Opposite parties delivered the mobile cell phone and SIM card and thereafter he is using that set by paying the charges regularly. On 03.09.2007 he received a letters from the Opposite parties calling upon him to make payment of the service charges of a different mobile connection, though it do not belongs to him. Therefore, he believed that Deepak Gowda and other representative of the Opposite parties who took Xerox copies of his PAN card, photos, voters ID card and unsigned application might have misused the same to another person in respect of that telephone number and therefore is not at all liable to pay the service charges of that connection. Then he got issued a legal notice, but did not receive any reply and therefore has prayed for a direction to the Opposite parties to take his signature to the application and also pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.<br /> 2. As the grievance of the complainant was found only against the third Opposite party. The complainant later on got first and second Opposite parties deleted and that third Opposite party has been secured who has appeared through his advocate and filed version admitting to have given mobile telephone service to the complainant after he fulfilling the conditions. This Opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant in having had not taken his signature to the application given for connection of mobile service. He has further denied misusing of the documents of the complainant for giving service to another person and contended that in the course of giving connections of a innumerable number of customers and subscribers who are unknown fraudulently given the address of the complainant and obtaining connection, after he having come to know it from the complainant they immediately suspended the connection and inadvertently, a payment reminder sent to the complainant was also withdrawn by duly informing the complainant about termination of the telephone connection by further informing the complainant that he need not make any payment nor he will receive any further bills and therefore further denying other allegations and deficiency in the service has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the complaint allegations, the complainant and one Gopinath for third Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and their version. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the bills sent by third Opposite party to the complainant and the correspondence letters that were exchanged between the complainant and the third Opposite party. <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the third Opposite party has caused deficiency in his service in giving telephone connection to a subscriber and sending bill to the complainant?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The first grievance of the complainant that he has taken mobile telephone service of third Opposite party, but third Opposite party has not taken his signature to the application has been strictly denied by the third Opposite party not only in his version, but also in his affidavit evidence. The complainant has admitted that after he taking the telephone service on 24.05.2007 he has been using it receiving regular bills and is regularly paying the charges. Therefore, there appears to be no reason for the apprehension or for the imagination of the complainant that the third Opposite party had not taken his signature to the application given by him at the time of taking telephone connection. The third Opposite party categorically denied the allegations of the complainant that the application given by him is unsigned. Even assuming for a while that the third Opposite party has not taken signature of the complainant in the application given to him for the phone connection, it is the concern of the third Opposite party and by that the complainant has not suffered any loss or is not effected in any way. It is not that the third Opposite party having not taken the signature of the complainant in the application initiated any action for disconnection or to do any harm or loss to the complainant. Therefore, when nothing intervened in this complainant enjoying the service of the telephone service extended by third Opposite party, we do not find any justification for an apprehension of the complainant for coming with this complaint. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove that the third Opposite party has not taken his signature to the application at the time of providing telephone service, therefore we find no force in the contention of the complainant in this behalf and the complaint in that regard is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 7. The complainant further contended as if the representative of third Opposite party who had taken Xerox copies of certain documents from him might have used those documents for giving telephone connection to another subscriber. Here, the complainant is also not sure of the representative of the third Opposite party using documents, but because of a bill received by him from the third Opposite party for payment of a telephone connection charges, the complainant appears to have entertained doubt that the representative of the third Opposite party must have misused his documents. The third Opposite party contended that a subscriber fraudulently had obtained a mobile telephone service by furnishing the residential address of this complainant and have further stated that they did not voluntarily do it, but acted upon information given by that subscriber, but have further stated that on coming to know this from the complainant, they immediately suspended the service and informed the complainant not to pay any user charges of that telephone with further assurance that the complainant will not receive any bill henceforth in connection with that fraudulent telephone service charges. The complainant has admitted after the third Opposite party informed him of having suspended the service to that cell phone, the third Opposite party did not send any bill or initiate any action to recover telephone charges of that fraudulent connection. That being so, it is undisputed that the third Opposite party after having come to know a fraudulent service, suspended the service and recalled the bills by further informing the complainant not to pay any charges and he will not receive any bills of that connection. As admitted by the complainant he did not get any demand or reminder for payment of bill amount. The complainant therefore in our view has no cause of action to approach this Forum with this complaint. Therefore, the complaint in our view is not a bonafide one.<br /> 8. It could be seen from the facts pleaded by the third Opposite party that a subscriber had obtained a fraudulent connection by giving the residential address of this complainant. It is quite natural when the third Opposite party has wide established service connections, they will not be knowing the correctness or genuineness of the particulars given by a subscriber for getting telephone service, therefore it emerges that acting on the particulars given by a subscriber he had given connection bonafidely, but after coming to know the fraudulent act, they have written no time suspended connection and sent regretting letter to the complainant to ignore the claim made by them against him. That being so, the act of the third Opposite party cannot be held as malafide or fraudulent and to further hold it has deficient. It is under these circumstances, we find no merits in the complaint, as no deficiency is caused by the third Opposite party and therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief. As the result, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />