ANAND SUNDARLAL MALHARA Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Presiding Judicial Member (Oral) -The present appeal is filed by original complainant against the judgment and order dated 9.9.2005 in complaint case No. 376/04 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon.

(2.) APPELLANT /Org. Complainant's case before the Forum is that, he had obtained mobile facility from respondent. His mobile number is 9422277334. It is contended that he had paid Rs. 7500 as security deposit against international roaming and ISD facility on 5.5.2004. It is contended that international simcard was issued to the complainant for availing facility in foreign countries. It is contended that complainant had gone to Dubai and Germany in between 8.5.2004 to 19.5.2004. It is contended that during this period he could not talk to his family members due to non -activation of roaming facility. Thus, he suffered mental distress. Thus, he filed complaint for refund of roaming charges and compensation.

(3.) RESPONDENT appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. They are not at dispute that mobile facility was provided to the complainant and he has deposited the amount of Rs. 7500 as against security deposit. They had issued international simcard for availing facility. Facility was activated on 7.5.2004. It is contended that practical demonstration of operation of the said facility was done by complainant in presence of officer of B.S.N.L. They have denied the contention of complainant that he had been to Germany and Dubai from 8.5.2004 to 19.5.2004. It is contended that while going through roaming files containing call data records for international roamers in between 8.5.2004 to 19.5.2004. Calls made by roamers reflected in the roaming files received from the operators of these countries. It is contended that none of subscriber ever made complaint about said facility from Dubai and Germany. It is also contended that terms and conditions were signed by complainant in which it is mentioned that "B.S.N.L. will not liable to the customer for any loss of business, profit, revenue or goodwill, anticipated savings, use or contracts, or for any indirect or consequential loss howsoever, it arises". It is contended that complainant had agreed to condition in question in writing. It is also contended that there is possibility at the time of availing facility error is caused due to instrument.