1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is a customer of Idea Cellular Company vides Mobile No.7788966566 and on 29.8.2015 a call came to his mobile to which the complainant received.  The call started making offers on subscription and to avoid subscription the complainant disconnected the call but immediately received a message of deducting Rs.15/- from his balance towards VAS subscription.  It is submitted that the complainant intimated the fact of such deduction who lodged a complaint and assured to return the money but on further contact the customer care intimated that there is a third party involvement who is monitoring it.  In spite of prolonged wait the OP has not refunded the money and remained silent.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund Rs.15/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.25, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the SIM of Mobile No.7788966566 has never purchased by the complainant and as per the record of the Company, the said SIM has been sold to Mr. Haladhar Pattasani, S/o. Krutibas Pattasani, resident of Hadia, Jeypore, Dist-Koraput on 05.01.2015 by their retailer, Sewa Communication, Parabeda, Jeypore.  It is contended that on 29.8.2015 the complainant had received VAS from their Vendor “One97 Communication Limited” and the complainant voluntarily subscribed the VAS by giving double consent i.e. by pressing digit 5 & 9 from his handset under sequence as per instruction of system and hence the subscription amount of Rs.15/- has been deducted from his balance.  The OP further contended that to avoid any promotional message to come to his mobile, the complainant has not registered his set under DND (Do Not Disturb) and the Company is sending messages those who have not registered their mobiles under DND. Denying all other allegations of the complainant and denying any unfair trade practice on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The OP filed affidavit.  Heard from the complainant as well as the A/R for the OP and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case receipt of OBD call from the server of the OP on 29.8.2015 by the complainant is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that as the said call was giving offers only on behalf of OP, he disconnected the call but immediately received a message through his handset that a sum of Rs.15/- has been deducted from his balance towards VAS subscription.  On complaint to customer care of the OP that he has not subscribed for the offer, they lodged a complaint assuring early refund of money but did not do anything.

5.                     The OP inter alia has raised a preliminary objection stating that the complainant is not their consumer as the mobile number used by him has been sold to one Mr. Harihar Pattasani on 05.01.2015 by their retailer Sewa Communication, Parabeda, Jeypore.  The OP in support of his contention has produced copy of Common Application Form (CAF) through which the SIM No.7788766566.  The OP submitted that as the complainant is not their customer, he cannot maintain this case before this Forum.

6.                     Before going to other merits of this case, Forum is duty bound to decide the preliminary objection raised by the parties.  Hence we perused the CAF filed by the OP in support of its objection and found that the alleged SIM/Mobile Number has been sold to Mr. Harihar Pattasani, S/o. Krutibas Pattasani, resident of Hadia, Jeypore, Dist-Koraput on 05.01.2015 and Harihar has signed the said CAF.  A Pass Post Size Photo with due cross signature of Harihar Pattasani is affixed with the CAF.  His Photo Identity Card copy is also attached to the CAF with signature of the candidate.  From the above facts it can be easily concluded that the alleged Mobile Number has been sold in favour of Harihar Pattasani of Hadia but not in favour of the present complainant.  As the complainant is not the owner of the SIM, he cannot be a consumer of the OP.  Further no paper is available on record that Mr. Harihar Pattasani has authorised the present complainant to use the SIM.  In the above premises, we found no merit in the case of the complainant.

7.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

(to dict.)