Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for a relief from this Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- The opposite party is running an STD Booth (as a Franchise of BSNL) in her institution named N.F. Communication, Pathanamthitta. On 23.9.2003 at 12.03 noon complainant came in the above booth and dialed 954735-227850, a number at Ranny for 90 seconds. The opposite party issued computerised bill of Rs.3.30/-. The actual charge payable for local call (Group Dialing) as stipulated by BSNL and informed to public is Rs.1.30/-. The opposite party demanded Rs.3.30 instead of Rs.1.30. He has given Rs.5/- but the opposite party does not given the balance of Rs.3.70. The complainant pointed out the opposite party that she has no right to collect any amount more than Rs.1.30/- as per direction of the BSNL. The opposite party not admitted his assertion. She humiliated him by spurious words in the presence of the public. The said act of the opposite party has caused much mental agony, humiliation and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party filed her version stating that complaint is not sustainable either in law or on facts. But she admits that on 23.3.2003, the complainant came to her STD booth and telephoned to Ranny. More over she states that the charge for calls from Pathanamthitta to Ranny from any telephone booth in Pathanamthitta is Rs.3.30. Her contention is that she also collected the said charge as others do. But in this case, complainant has given Rs.1.50 only. She also stated that the telephone number called by complainant does not exist. She has not humiliated him. But the complainant humiliated her and thereby she suffered mental pain and agony. For that she is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,500/-. Hence it is prayed for the dismissal of the petition.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration.<br /> <br /> 1.Whether the relief sought for in the complaint are allowable?<br /> 2.Compensation and Cost.<br /> <br /> 5. Points 1 & 2:- In support of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit. Based on the affidavit, the complainant is examined as PW1 and the document produced by him have been marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is the computerized bill of Rs.3.30 issued by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the circular issued by BSNL regarding the prevailing tariff etc. Ext.A2(a) is the BSNL’s press release regarding service charge dated on 31.8.2001 in Indian Express Daily and Hindu Daily. Ext.A3 is the direction of BSNL regarding revision of tariff etc. for calls. Ext.A5 is the Kerala Kaumudi Daily dated 29.1.05. Ext.A5(a) is the relevant portion of press release in Ext.A5. One witness for the complainant was examined as PW2 and the Accounts Officer of BSNL, Thiruvalla was examined as PW3 and Ext.A2 to A5(a) was marked through him. On the basis of the evidence, complainant canvassed for allowing the complaint.<br /> <br /> 6. The opposite party filed her proof affidavit and she was examined as DW1 and marked two bills as Ext.B1 and B2. According to her, Ext. B1 and B2 were the bills issued to her in similar STD Booth that situated in Pathanamthitta when she called to Ranny. Her contention is that Rs.3.30 is the uniform charge in telephone booths in Pathanamthitta. Therefore, she had not committed any wrong as alleged by the complainant and she canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 7. On going through the evidence, it is pertinent to note that the admissibility of Ext.A1 has not been disputed. As per A1 bill, the service charge collected by the opposite party is Rs.2/-. As per the guidelines of BSNL as seen from A2, A2(a), A3, A4, A5, A5(a) press release, Ext.A1 bill is not in accordance with the BSNL direction. As per the deposition and as per exhibits produced by PW3, telephone booth operators are not entitled to collect service charges for the calls made to places below 50 km. distance. The complainant’s call to Ranny as evidenced from A1 bill is below 50 km. PW2 in his deposition narrates in tune with the contention of PW1. Since the deposition of PW2 was not challenged, mainly in respect of the incident, there is no reason to disbelieve his deposition. PW3 is the authorized officer of BSNL categorically stated that service charge cannot be charged for calls made to Ranny from Pathanamthitta and thereby he confirmed the acts of the opposite party based on Ext.A1 bill is illegal. <br /> <br /> 8. The opposite party has not cited any witness to prove her case. She herself was examined as DW1 and marked two bills. Ext.B1 and B2 issued by other STD Booth operators at Pathanamthitta. According to her, she is also giving bills to the customers as other STD Booth operators of Pathanamthitta. The illegal act done by others is not a license for doing the same. Such vindication based on Ext.B1 and B2 is irrational immaterial and cannot be digestible so long as the stipulations and direction of BSNL is existing. In short, B1 and B2 will no way help the unfair trade practice of the opposite party, and the excess amount collected by the opposite party is illegal. From the facts and circumstances and from the depositions of PWs.1 and 2, it is clear that the complainant had paid Rs.5/- to the opposite party who does not returned the balance. This aspect was also not disproved by the opposite party. Hence the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.3.68 being the balance of Rs.5/- less the call charge of Rs.1.32. Hence we find that the complainant can be allowed the complaint and is entitled to get back Rs.3.68 the excess amount collected by the opposite party with interest. The opposite party is also liable to pay compensation for the mental suffering, and the humiliation, caused due to the unfair trade practice of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 9. In the result, the complainant is allowed to get back Rs.3.68 (Rupees Three and Sixty eight paise only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the opposite party with effect from the date of this complaint till this date and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization of the whole amount. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings humiliation caused to the complainant through the unfair trade practice on her part. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount so awarded to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. As there is no prayer for cost, we are not allowing any cost to the complainant.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of April, 2008.<br /> <br /> (Sd/-)<br /> N. Premkumar,<br /> (Member). <br /> <br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Appendix:-<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : C.D. Sureshkumar.<br /> PW2 : Adv. E.M. Suresh.<br /> PW3 : Krishnamoorthy. L.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Telephone call bill dated 23.9.2003 for Rs.3.30.<br /> A2 : Press Release issued by BSNL regarding slashed down long distance <br /> tariff for fix to fix telephone.<br /> A2(a) : Press Release published by New Indian Express daily dated 31.8.2001<br /> regarding service charge for inter-SDCA calls.<br /> A3 : Circular dated 22.12.2004 issued by BSNL.<br /> A4 : Circular dated 22.3.2005 issued by BSNL.<br /> A5 : Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 29.1.2005.<br /> A5(a) : The relevant portion of Ext.A5.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:<br /> DW1 : Subaida.<br /> B1&B2 :Telephone call bills dated 15.6.2004.<br /> <br /> By Order,<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.