CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 24^th day of December, 2011

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K, Member Date of filing: 07/07/2011

CC / 101 / 2011

Suresh Kumar,

S/o P. Balarajan,

Poolakkal House,

East Ottapalam,

Pin – 679 101. - Complainant

(BY ADV. A.K. PHILIP & V. REETHA)

Vs

1. K.I. Kiran,

Proprietor, Gift mobile,

Opp. Kanaka Wedding Center,

Main Road, Ottapalam.

Pin – 679 101.

(BY ADV. K.P. VIJAYALAKSHMi)

2. The Marketing Manager,

Videocon Telecommunication Ltd.,

39/6481, Point Building,

M.G. Road, Ravipuram,

Ernakulam, Cochin- 682 015

(BY ADV. MANOJKUMAR. K.M & V. SUBHASH)

3. The Manager,

Videocon Telecommunication Ltd.,

171.C. Mital Court C wing,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai-400 021, Maharashtra. - Opposite parties

(BY ADV. MANOJKUMAR. K.M & V. SUBHASH)

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A. K, MEMBER

The case of the complainant:

The complainant has purchased a mobile phone and a Sim card of Videocon company from 1^st opposite party on 30/03/2011. For the said purpose necessary documents ie, photo of the complainant and photocopy of the complainant's identity card are also submitted in the 1^st opposite party shop. But 18 days after purchase, the company barred the outgoing calls as necessary documents are not submitted in the Videocon company. But 1^st opposite party says that they have already sent the documents to the company. On 28/04/2011 the company disconnected the service of the complainant. The complainant has spent Rs. 2045/- for the mobile phone. Even though this amount was spend by the complainant he could not use the same because of the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Now the complainant believes that by using the documents of the complainant the 1^st opposite party activated Sim card for any other person. The complainant contacted customer care center and sent registered notice to the opposite parties. But no reply.

So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to return the documents which he had submitted and pay an amount of Rs. 2045/- which he had already spent for the mobile phone and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with the cost of the proceedings.

All opposite parties entered appearance. No version was filed except 1^st opposite party.

In their version 1^st opposite party admits that the complainant has purchased a mobile phone of Videocon from 1^st opposite party shop. It is not known to the 1^st opposite party about the disconnection of mobile phone connection and sending notice to the opposite parties. 1^st opposite party denies the misuse of the documents submitted by the complainant. 1^st opposite party has not received any amount from the complainant for giving connection. 1^st opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext. A1 to A9 marked. Opposite parties have not filed any affidavit.

Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are,

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? If so,

2. What is the relief and cost?

Issues I & II

Complaint is for getting compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. On 30/03/2011 the complainant has purchased a mobile phone of Videocon company from the 1^st opposite party. It is evident from Ext. A1 document. For activating Sim card and getting service, necessary documents are also submitted in the 1^st opposite party shop on the same day. Eighteen days after purchasing of the mobile phone, outgoing calls barred as necessary documents not submitted. 1^st opposite party has no definit case that the complainant has not submitted the necessary documents. Even then the phone connection of the complainant was disconnected on 14/04/2011. This fact is evident from Ext. A3 document. A3 document also demanded the complainant to submit the documents at the nearest Videocon mobile service outlet. That means the documents of the complainant are not reached in the company. Ext. A5 document which is the reply to the complainant by District Police Superintendent shows that the document submitted by the complainant was lost from the 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party will be responsible for all difficulties caused by missing of the documents.

From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party is not submitting the necessary documents of the complainant in the company. 1^st opposite party raised a contention in their version that they are not aware of the disconnection of the mobile phone connection and they have not received any notice. This contention seems to be incorrect. Ext. A7 is the postal receipt of the notice sent by the complainant to 1^st opposite party. The principal authority also responsible for the mistake done by the dealers.

In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost of the proceedings. Complainant is directed to return the mobile set to 1^st opposite party on receiving the ordered amount.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of receipt of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 24^th day of December, 2011

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha. G. Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext. A1 –Original Cash Bill (No.043) issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant dated 30/03/2011.

Ext. A2 - Original Brochure of Videocon mobile phone.

Ext. A3 - Copy of Message received from Videocon Mobile Phone Customer Care dated 14/04/2011

Ext. A4 - Copy of Complaint Letter sent by the complainant to Ottapalam Police Superintendent dated 16/04/2011.

Ext. A5 - Original reply received by the complainant from District police Office, Palakkad dated 10/11/2011.

Ext. A6 - Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party dated 14/05/2011.

Ext. A7 - Original Postal receipt

Ext. A8 – Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party dated 02/05/2011.

Ext. A9 – Original Postal receipt.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

Nil.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties

Nil.

Cost allowed

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