D.O.F. 30.04.2010
D.O.O. 31.10.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011.
C.C.No.117/2010
Muhammed Kalathil,
Darussalam,
T.C. Road, : Complainant
Kuthuparamba, Kannur
(Rep. by Adv. T. Manoj Kumar)
Jithesh,
S/o. P.V. Kunhikkannan,
Surya Electronics World, : Opposite party
Pilakoottam, Kuthuparamba P.O.,
Kannur
(Rep. by Adv. E. Sanilkumar)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 10,000 as compensation with 61% interest from the date of complaint till realization with cost.
The case of the complainant is that he had taken two Reliance Big TV connection on 21.11.08 for one year package. On expiry of the said one year the complainant had renewed the package for one more year from 24.11.09 and an amount of ` 2,600 was entrusted to opposite party in cash in the presence of one K.P. Abdul Raouf. But the opposite party has not done his responsibilities. The opposite party has not handed over the above said amount to the Reliance Big T.V. and thereby shows unfair practice and deficient service. So the complainant had issued a registered lawyer notice, but he has not fulfilled his responsibilities. So this act of the opposite party caused so much of hardships to the complainant. So he had availed sun T.V. connection by giving ` 3498. So the complainant had suffered financial loss also. So all these were caused due to the unfair trade practice and deficient service of the opposite party and hence he is liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint.
In response to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed his version and denied the averment that the opposite party is the owner of Soorya Electronics World. The opposite party is only an employee of the above shop and hence there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party. If the complainant had any grievances with respect to the connection, the service provider Reliance Company and its agents Soorya Electronics World are responsible for the same and the opposite party is in no way responsible for the same and the complaint against opposite party is not maintainable before the Forum. The opposite party has never contacted the complainant for availing Big T.V. connection. The opposite party as an employee of the Surya Electronics, aware the fact that the complainant had availed the Big T.V. connection and paid ` 2,600 before the above agent and they had handed over the same to the Reliance Company etc. The opposite party never assured that he will do the needful for extending the package for further one year. The opposite party is doing work as per the instruction of his employer. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, Reliance Big T.V. and the Soorya Electronics World. The opposite party had handed over the document to the complainant through which the Soorya Electronic World has handed over ` 2,600 to the Reliance Company. The opposite party is only an employee of the agent of the Reliance Big T.V. and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contradictory Version the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4.
The complainant’s case is that eventhough he had paid ` 2,600 for recharging the Reliance big t.v. connection to opposite party, during 2009 to 2010, the complainant has not received connection due to the unfair practice and deficient service of opposite party. In order to prove his contention, PW1 was examined and documents such as brochure, copy of lawyer notice, acknowledgment card and reply notice etc were produced. Eventhough the complainant was cross examined for opposite party, he has not turned up subsequently and not produced either oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his contention.
The opposite party admits that the complainant had given ` 2,600 for recharging his reliance big T.V. connection. But according to 1st opposite party he had already handed over the same to the reliance T.V.. Moreover the opposite party contended that he is only an employee of the agent Soorya Electronics World. But in the Ext.A4, which is the reply notice issued on behalf of the opposite parties, it is stated that “It is admitted that your parties had taken two Reliance Big T.V. connection through my client. It is also admitted that a sum of ` 2,600 was entrusted to my client for remittance by your party”. This admission to opposite party proves that the complainant has taken the connection through the opposite party. Eventhough the opposite party contended that he has remitted the amount to the Reliance big T.V., he has not produced any documents to prove the contention. The complainant’s consistent case is that, the reason for non-availability of connection is due to the non-remittance of the amount to the Reliance big T.V. So the opposite party failed to prove that he has already paid the amount to the reliance T.V. Moreover as an agent, he has also responsibility to make sure that whether the subscriber is satisfied with their service . Moreover the absence of opposite party during subsequent proceeding itself is deficiency of service. So we are of the opinion that there is unfair practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for which he is liable to refund the above said amount of ` 2600 along with ` 500 as compensation and ` 500 as cost of this proceedings to the complainant and passed order accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund ` 2,600 (Rupees Two thousand six hundred only) along with ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) as compensation and ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of order, failing which the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Brochure.
A2. Lawyer notice dated 09.03.2010.
A3. Acknowledgment card.
A4. Reply Notice dated 22.03.10.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
