DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.14/2007

V.Malathi,

D/o.T.Balakrishnan Nair,

Gopasree, Thenur,

Kottayi Road,

Parali, Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.Rajesh Panangad)

Vs

1. Hendez Trading Ltd.,

Authorised Business Associates of

Tata Tele Services Ltd.,

P.B.No.70, Balakrishna Complex,

G.B.Road, Palakkad.

2. M/s.Tala Tele Services Limited,

S.L.Plaza,

Palarivattam,

Cochin. - Opposite parties

(By Adv.Vinod.K.Kayanat)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Complainant purchased a Tata mobile in the name of Haier on 22/12/06 from the 1^st opposite party on payment of Rs.1,400/-. On 23/12/06 itself complainant submitted attested copy of the identity card along with passport size photos as requested by 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party issued a temporary receipt and on the same day itself connection was activated. On 2/01/07 1^st opposite party disconnected the connection without any information. Several times complainant approached 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party again asked to produce copy of identity card and passport size photographs. The same was produced by the complainant. On 15/01/07 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that they could not activate the connection in the name of the complainant and asked her to submit copy of the identity card and passport size photograph of her husband. Later the connection was transferred in the name of her husband at the request of 1^st opposite party.

2. Opposite parties filed version. 1^st opposite party admits the connection provided to the complainant. 1^st opposite party submits that on verification of the documents produced by the complainant it was found that the photograph submitted and the photo in the identity card were mismatching and also the signature in the application and photos differ. Hence they disconnected the phone services. Connection was revived later as per the direction of 2^nd opposite party.

3. 2^nd opposite party denies all the allegations of the complainant. 2^nd opposite party has no knowledge about the transaction between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is not responsible for the unlawful acts if any done by the 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party received a filled up application dt.22/12/06 and on that basis telephone No.9249350796 was activated in the name of one Gopalan who is the husband of the complainant and the same has been using even now. Complainant has never made any complaints or intimation to 2^nd opposite party stating any grievance. According to 2^nd opposite party complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

4. The evidence adduced consists of the affidavits of all parties along with Ext.A1 marked on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of opposite parties.

5. Now the issues for consideration are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? and

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

6. Points 1 & 2:

The definite case of the complainant is that she was allotted a mobile phone connection and the necessary formalities, viz the production of copy of identity card and passport size photos as requested by 1^st opposite party is also complied. The said connection was disconnected by the opposite parties without any information after a period of 10 days. When enquired complainant was asked to produce again copy of identity card and passport size photos. Even on the submission of the same, connection was not activated. Later as per the request of 1^st opposite party connection was given in the name of her husband on production of necessary particulars. As per the contention of 1^st opposite party application of the said connection was sent through the sub agent of M/s.EVS Enterprises, Court Road,

Palakkad who deals with prepaid connection of M/s.Tata Tele Services and he has given a temporary receipt and SIM card on the assumption that the documents submitted by the complainant were in order. Later on verification by 2^nd opposite party it was found that photo submitted differ from the one in the identity card and also signature in the photograph and application differs. Hence 2^nd opposite party disconnected the connection. Later connection was given in the name of the husband of the complainant on her request.

7. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record. The say of 2^nd opposite party that the temporary receipt for connection was issued by another sub agent of 2^nd opposite party seems to be unacceptable. Ext.A1 receipt reveals the fact that it was issued by 1^st opposite party alone. Further the contention of 1^st opposite party that 2^nd opposite party disconnected the connection because of the irregularities in the documents submitted by the complainant is also devoid of any merit. Opposite parties ought to have verified the documents before the issuance of the connection. For the fault on the part of the opposite parties complainant cannot be made to suffer. 2^nd opposite party is also vicariously liable for the acts of 1^st opposite party, being the principal.

8. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the act of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on their part.

9. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest p.a from the date of order till realisation.

10. Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of June, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Temporary receipt No.5655 dt.23/12/06 for Rs.1400/- issued by 1^st opposite party to complainant

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 – Copy of application form submitted by Gopalan to Anzar Enterprises

Ext.B2 – Copy of Electoral identity card of Gopalan

Costs (allowed)

Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.