The present Complaint pertains to deficiency of service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. Its brief history is as follows:- The Complainant, a self-employed professional, is a Consumer of Opposite Party No.2(two), having Sim card ID No. 89915300000041425422 and the Sim card No. 9937056578. The Complainant applied for an Airtel Post-paid connection with internet connection on dt.28/06/2006 by paying the required fees along with necessary documents to Opposite Party No.1(one) and received Sim card ID No. 89915300000041425422 and the Sim card No. 9937056578 after running to the agency counter of Opposite Party No.1(one) time and again. Inspite of repeated request, both telephonic as well as personal, to Opposite Party No.1(one) the SIM was not activated nor the internet connection was given. Resultantly, the Complainant's work was hampered and he sustained loss and suffered from mental agony. Though the Complainant had communicated with the C.E.O. of the Company Opposite Party No.2(two), Complaint desk of the Company Priyanka Pattanaik and its Consumer Care at Mumbai Office, but without any result. In reply to the Advocate's Notice Dt.23/09/2006, the Opposite Party No.1(one) sent him a copy of letter Dt.27/09/2006 addressed to Aditya V.Associates, Budharaja, Sambalpur, for action at their end, saying nothing about the Complainant's claim. For non-activating the SIM and not giving the internet connection and the resultant loss of income and mental agony, the Complainant claims from the Opposite Parties compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses and prays for directing the Opposite Parties to activate the SIM and give internet connection to the complainant. The Opposite Party No.1(one), in its version, contends that it has not received any consideration from the Complainant to provide any service, and therefore, the latter not being a Consumer of this Opposite Party, as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, the Complaint is not maintainable against him. On being approached by the Complainant to provide an Airtel Post-paid connection, this Opposite Party clearly told the Complainant that there is no authorised distributor for Air-tel Post paid connection at Bargarh and M/s Aditya V. Associates, Sambalpur, is the authorised distributor for the same. In order to help him get a post-paid connection, the Opposite Party No.1(one) received from him the required fee and application, forwarded both the money and the application to M/s Aditya V.Associates, Sambalpur, who, inturn, supplied one SIM card to this Opposite Party which was handed over to the Complainant by this Opposite Party. Some time thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1(one) was informed by the Opposite Party No.2(two) that, on verification of the application, the Opposite party No.2(two) found that the Complainant was not residing within the area of operation of Air-tel Post-paid Service and therefore, he was not eligible to avail the service and the amount paid by the Complainant be refunded to him. This Opposite Party contends that he informed the Complainant accordingly, but the Complainant without taking back his money, served a Pleader Notice on him, by suppressing the actual fact on false grounds. The Opposite Party No.1(one) forwarded the Pleader's Notice by registered Post, to M/s Aditya V. Associates informing the Advocate of the Complainant about the same. The Opposite Party No.1(one) contends that he has not shown any deficiency of service towards the Complainant and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed, the complainant being liable to pay cost to the Opposite Party No.1(one) U/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, for having filed this vexatious and frivolous Complaint against him. The Opposite Party No.2(two), in its version, clarifies that, it was formerly known as Bharati Cellular Ltd, against whom the present Complaint has been filed, and hence, it appears and files version in the Complaint. The Opposite Party No.2(two) questions the maintainability of the Complaint against it due to lack of cause of action, non-joinder of necessary party and non-mention of the name of the authorised person by whom the Company is represented. The Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that as the Opposite Party No.1(one), through whom the Complainant applied for Post-paid mobile connection, was not authorized for the same, Aditya V. Associates, Sambalpur, issued the SIM with the condition that the SIM would be activated on verification of the documents and place of residence of the applicant. It was found that Bardol the residence of the applicant/Complainant was out of the geographical limit and there was no business stretch of the Opposite Party No.2(two) to the the said place for which the application was rejected and the same was immediately communicated to the complainant, with a request to get refund of the deposit at the earliest, to which the Complainant did not respond. The Opposite Party No.2(two) denies the Complainant to be its consumer and says that the SIM card No.9937056578 mentioned in the complaint is not correct. It says that the Complainant was never harassed by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and the SIM card is activated, if on verification, it. would be found correct and a mobile number is assigned to the applicant. The Opposite Party No.2(two) claims the complaint against it to be frivolous and vexation and seeks its dismissal with cost U/s 26 of the Act. Perused the Complaint, the version of the Opposite Parties as well as the copies of documents filed by the Parties and find as follows; The Opposite Party No.2's contention questioning the maintainability of the case does not hold water, as the subject matter of the Complaint is a part of the business it deals with. Secondly, a consumer is not always expected to know the exact name of the authorized person by whom a company is represented. On scanning the evidence adduced and the stand taken by the Opposite Party No.2(two) lacunas on its part, appear crystal clear. It has not adduced any evidence to prove that, Bardol, the place of residence of the Complainant is out of the geographical limit or it has no post-paid business stretch therein. This Opposite Party has also not proved that it had actually sent back the deposited money or intimated the Complainant to take back the same from Opposite Party No.1(one). By keeping the Complainant in dark and, thus, hanging, for months, about the fact of rejection of application for post-paid connection, the Opposite Party No.2(two) has committed deficiency of service and mental harassment against the Complainant. The complainant, in his petition, claims him-self to be a consumer of the Opposite Party No.2(two) only. Besides, no case is made-out against Opposite Party No.1(one) and hence, the Complaint is dismissed so far as the Opposite Party No.1(one) as concerned. In the result, the Opposite Party No.2(two) is directed to refund to the Complainant amount of Rs.750/-(Rupees seven hundred fifty)only, the fee deposited by him, as well as a compensation of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only which includes litigation expenses within 30(thirty) days hence, with 9%(nine percent)interest per annum over both the amounts, chargeable from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e , with effect from Dt.03/04/2007, failing which the said amounts shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till payment. Since, the Complainant has not been able to refute the claim of the Opposite Party No.2(two) that Bardol, the place of residence of the Complainant lies out of the Geographical limit and it has no business stretch therein, his prayer to direct the Opposite Party No.2(two) to activate SIM and give internet connection to the Complainant, could not be conceded. Hence refund of the deposited amount with interest would be in the fitness of things and serve ends of justice. Complaint disposed of accordingly. Typed to my dictation