The complaint is in respect of compensation. The averements in the complaint are as follows.
On 14-11-2014 while complainant was getting ready for a journey to Dubai he purchased a mobile Sim card from opposite party No.2 who is selling mobile Sim card in the airport Calicut with the consent of the first opposite party, the airport authority. The Sim card purchased by complainant was that of Estisalat company. At the time of purchasing the SIM card the second opposite party revealed to complainant that after activation of the Sim call can be made to India from Dubai for one and half hours and local call in Dubai for one hour and in addition to them 100mb data message would be available. For the Sim connection the 2nd opposite party charged Rs.1600/- (One thousand six hundred only). After boarding the flight when the complainant perused the invoice it was revealed that the offer of the company was for talk time only for 30 minutes to India and free incoming. After reaching Dubai complainant he waited for 3 days for further offer. Then tried to contact the opposite party No2 and Mumbai customer care cell and they offered to call him back. But they never contacted complainant. Then he noticed that the reach codes and redeem code are not activated. He also contacted Estisalat Mobile company and they revealed they have not given such offers as claimed by complainant. There for he sustained mental agony and financial loss. Then on 10th December he returned to calicut airport and on reaching there he submitted the complaint before the air port authority complaint cell . The sales man of air port authority revealed that the mistake was that of their computer system. After filing a complaint before airport authority no action was taken by them. Thus complainant is entitled to compensation for Rs.20000/- (Twenty Thousand only) as monetory loss and Rs.50000 (Fifty Thousand only) compensation for mental agony.
Opposite party No.1 filed version stating as follows. The suit is bad for mis joinder of parties. This opposite party is unnecessary party in the present litigation. This opposite party has never sold any article to the complainant receiving consideration so the complainant can not be treated as consumer of this opposite party. The complainant can not claim compensation from this opposite party if complainant has suffered any loss by the act of any person to whom this opposite party granted license to conduct business in the property of airport authority of India. The airport authority of India is statutory body and Calicut international air port is owned by airport authority of India . The role of Airport authority of India is only to provide space in the airport to different authorities , for air lines and other commercial establishments. This opposite party has no supervisory control over them. For the second opposite party also space has been provided by this opposite party to run a commercial establishment. The opposite party has nothing to do with any of these acts. The space provided to them is based on a contract for the purpose of selling global telecom Sim cards for 3 year for 2014. The complaint received by this opposite party is already forwarded to opposite party No.2 for necessary action. So this complaint is to be dismissed against this opposite party.
2nd opposite party filed separate version as follows. The complainant had purchased a UAE Sim card with a super saver plan from this opposite party at calicut airport and complainant had used the recharge coupons . The complainant did not intimate the customer care about any problem regrading the activation of Sim card in UAE. For activation of the Sim card the complainant called Etisalat help line where he was guided to recharge coupon. With out making any proper and diligent effort to intimate the uni connect customer care , he can not allege any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. Hence complaint is to be dismissed.
Complainant and both opposite parties filed chief affidavits and Ext.A1 is marked. Complainant is cross examined by second opposite party.
Points arise for consideration
(1)Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
(2) Reliefs and cost.
Point No.1
According to complainant he had purchased Mobile Sim card of opposite party No.2 before starting his journey to DUBAI. This Sim card was purchased by him from the shop of opposite party No.2 functioning in calicut air port. The role of the first opposite party, the air port authority in the transaction of complainant with opposite party No.2 is not revealed specially in the complaint. According to opposite party No.1 they permitted opposite party No.2 to conduct a shop in the airport and a space was given for that with out any consideration. Thus from the averemnts in the complaint as well as the only document produced by the complainant which is marked as Ext. A1, the liability of first opposite party is not brought out. Only on the ground that the second opposite party is conducting shop in the airport no liability can be fastened on opposite part No.1. Complainant failed to prove the jural relationship between first opposite party with second opposite party in the matter of business. If that be so it can be rightly held that the transaction was between complainant and second opposite party and there is no role for first opposite party in that transaction . There for first opposite party can be found to be an unnecessary party.
As far as the liability of the second opposite party is concerned the complainant alleged that he was offered one and half hours call to India and one hour local call in Dubai and 100mb data free message etc. In the cross examination of complainant by opposite party No.2 he disclosed that he realized the offers as noted in the Ext. A1 only after boarding on the flight . It is significant to note that in Ext. A1 the features of the recharge voucher is clearly shown . As per that 100mb at high speed credit of 3 AED for 50 minutes calling to India 80 minutes local call and free incoming calls. The complainant alleged that after reaching Dubai he tried to contact customer care of opposite party No.2 but no positive response was obtained there from. There is no averement in the complaint that he has not obtained any facilities as shown in Ext. A1 from opposite party No.2. The averements against opposite party No.2 seemed to be vague
It is alleged by complainant that when he contacted the customer of opposite party No.2 for getting offers they did not respond properly. Though Pw1, the complainant deposed in the cross examination that he had registered a complaint with opposite party No.2 and he obtained the register number by SMS but that is not produced by him. An evaluation of the allegations contained in the complaint it can be seen that the only grievance of the complainant is the reluctance of the second opposite party in responding to the enquiry made by complainant from customer care. Though he himself admitted in the cross examination that he had made complaint on that aspect and that complaint was registered by them and that was intimated the complainant by SMS. So that crucial evidence which would have proved the attempt of complainant to contact second opposite party through customer care and their reluctance to give a positive response to complainant. But that evidence is not produced by him . No satisfactory explain was given by complainant for not producing that piece of evidence . There for on the basis of the available evidence we can not conclude that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Point No.2
On the basis of the finding on the point No.1 we dismiss the complaint.
Dated this 31st day of January, 2017.
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Complainant, Jayaprakash.A
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1
Ext.A1 : Recharge voucher.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
