Sh. P. V. Raghunandan Vs. Shri Sumit Saran
Telecom Centre
Case No. 377/ 07
30.01.18
Present: None
Case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that on 16.06.03 he and his friend Sh. Deepak Sharma had made a call on complainant’s brother’s mobile No.9810247964 from the OP’s booth and the lady employee charged Rs.3/- for the call which was for less than 60 second duration. He again on 18.08.03 alongwith his friend Sh. Sunil Aggarwal made a call on his brother’s same mobile number and the lady employee charged Rs.3/- for the call which was for less than 60 second duration.
According to him, the tariff chart as published in the Times of India Newspaper on 08.05.03 shows that for Landline to Cellular call have pulse rate of sixty second and rate per unit was 1.20/- with service tax extra; that the charging of Rs.3/- on 16.06.03 & 18.08.03 for a call of less than sixty second was unfair and unjust. Complainant pursued the matter with the concerned authorities but to no avail. Hence, this complaint for directing the OP to pay Rs.3/- towards compensation for financial loss, Rs.1000/- for mental agony and Rs.220/- for the postal and consultation expenses and also to give the written apology on behalf the lady employee.
In the written statement, the OP has denied that the lady employee took Rs.3 for the call. It stated that this complaint has been made after more than 2 years and the complainant has also not given any document/receipt to prove his complaint. It is stated that the OP is charging the prescribed rates for the local calls. It is submitted that the Supreme Court Bar Association has 2500 member advocates and they are using the telecommunication facility since 19991 but they have never made any complaint for overcharging by the OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder, the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and also the affidavits of Sh. Deepak Sharma Adv., Sh. Sunil Aggarwal and Sh. C. M. Patel, Member of the Supreme Court Bar Association wherein they have reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
On the other hand, OP has filed his affidavit dated 23.03.06 and also the affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Member of the Supreme Court Bar Association in support of the contention made in the written statement.
Written arguments been filed on behalf of the parties.
Since none had been appearing on behalf of the complainant and the OP since 05.09.13 we directed issuance of notice for pairavi to them on 10.02.17 for 20.03.17. On 20.03.17 appearance was put on behalf of the complainant and memo of appearance was filed. None appeared on behalf of the OP on that date. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the complainant on 28.07.17, 16.11.17 and 09.01.18. None is present on his behalf today as well though the matter has been kept pending till 3 (three) p.m. Since, the case pertains to the year 2007, we proceed to decide the same.
In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed reliance on the tariff chart stated to be advertised by MTNL on 08.05.03 in the daily newspaper The Times of India. The photocopy of some newspaper cutting dated 08.05.03 has been placed on the record which we mark as Mark A for the purposes of proper identification.
W do not know whether it is a cutting of some tariff chart got published by the MTNL in the daily newspaper the Times of India or any other newspaper. Anyhow, without going into such controversy it is suffice to say that no legal reliance can be placed on a newspaper cutting report/advertisement in order to prove a fact. Therefore, we do not place any reliance on the said alleged newspaper cutting/advertisement.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties through Speed Post. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on 30.01.18.
