DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR

C.D. Case No.6 of 2015

Sukadev Bagarty, S/o. Natabara Bagarty, aged about  30 years, Occupation – Business, R/o. village - Lokapada, P.O. Matiapali, P.S. Manamunda, District – Boudh.

………….. Complainant

Vrs.

Swadhin Kumar Ratha, Operator of Vodafone Office bear Biju Pattnaik Chowk, Sonepur Bus Stand, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur.

………….. Opp. Party

Advocate for Complainant                                        ……….  Sri R.K.Nanda

Advocate for the O.P.                                                            ……….  Sri S.K.Sandha

Present

Sri S.C.Nayak,            President

Smt.S.Mishra,                         Lady Member

Sri H.Padhan,                        Male Member

Date of Judgment  Dt.24.03.2017

J U D G M E N T

By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.

This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

            The case of the complainant as unfurled in the complaint petition is that the complainant had purchased a Vodafone SIM Card from the company, which was registered through the O.P. after submission of necessary documents. The O.P. issued Vodafone SIM No.7381662661. Some important numbers were stored/saved there. The SIM Card was lost on 14.4.2015. The complainant applied before the O.P. for supply of another SIM in the same number. The complainant also furnished necessary documents before the O.P.

            But in spite of repeated approaches the O.P. had not supplied another SIM with the same number. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint case seeking Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and allied factor, Rs.10,000/- towards financial loss and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.

-:  2  :-

Pursuant to issuance of notice, O.P. entered appearance and filed version through his advocate. We have perused the version. It has neither been verified nor signed by the O.P. So the written version filed by the O.P. cannot be taken into consideration.

            Since the complainant remained absent on number of dates and also on the date of final hearing, we have heard the learned counsel for the O.P. This case is being disposed basing on the materials on record and upon examination of the submission of the learned counsel for the O.P.

            The advocate for the O.P. submitted that the O.P. has not sold the SIM card to the complainant. The complainant has not filed any document to show that the SIM card was purchased from the O.P. Despite opportunities being given to him, the complainant did not appear to substantiate his complaint. The settled principle in a complaint case is that the complainant is either to stand on his own or fall and for his success, he cannot take advantage of the weakness of the O.P.

            In the aforesaid factual scenario we are left with no option but to dismiss the complaint.

            In the result this complaint is dismissed. Parties are let to bear their own cost.

Dated the 24^th March 2017

                                                                                                                  Typed to my dictation

                            I agree.                                I agree.                            and corrected by me.

                     Sri H.Pradhan,                     Smt.S.Mishra,                             Sri S.C.Nayak

                      Male Member                       Lady Member                                  President

                      Dt.24.03.2017                        Dt.24.03.2017                               Dt.24.03.2017