EXTRACT OF ORDER

        The fact of case is that, the complainant is a consumer of OP.s bearing BSNL No.9437374572. On dt.21.03.2016 the complainant received a deduction message from the OP.s for Rs.80/- for a talk of 1 minute and 21 seconds to the No.263773855023. But the complainant contended that, without any talk to the above said number the OP.s deducted the amount in question. He further contended that, he approached the OP.1 personally at their office and requested for call status detail and to credit Rs.80/- to his phone balance but for no use, rather the OP.1 stated that, ‘You have called to any foreign country, hence the debit of Rs.80/- in 1 m & 21 seconds is very just and reasonable”. Finding no other way the complainant dialed to BSNL call center bearing no.1503 on the same day at about 11.55 A.M. and 12.01 P.M and requested to pay back his debited amount but for no respond by the OP.s. Moreover the complainant further approached the D.M. cum Collector, Nabarangpur on the same day through General Grievance No.159 dt.21.03.2016 but she advised to approach this Forum, hence this complaint. So the complainant prayed for compensation and cost in the interest of justice.

2.         On call the OP.s entered their appearance and contended through counter with evidence that the complainant truly dialed to an international number i.e. 263777355023 for duration of 1 m and 21 seconds on dt.21.03.16 at 09.01 a.m. and a copy of call service history report submitted by them before this forum for necessary perusal. Hence they contended that, there is no deficiency in service on their part, so they prayed to dismiss the case.

3.         From the record and evidence it reveals that, the complainant on dt.21.03.16 at 09:01.25 a.m. dialed a number to 263777355023 for 1 m and 21 seconds and as per provisions of Prepaid Telecom tariff the OP.s deducted Rs.80/- from his main balance. It is also seen that the complainant vehemently argued on the point that he or his family members has never dialed the said number, but he could not stand prove his case that he has never dialed the number on the alleged period. Quashing the contentions of complainant we relied the evidence filed by the OP.s and found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.s. Hence the case is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

         Sd/- Dt.27.06.2016                                           Sd/- Dt.27.06.2016

             MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT, DCDRF,                                                                                                                                                                                        NABARANGPUR.