Kerala

Wayanad

CC/09/117

P.K.Ibrahim,Puthiyetti kandy house,Mundakutty post,Kuppadithara. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mammootty,Mobile city sale service and forgien goods,Padinjarathara. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv: M.Khalid Raja

20 Mar 2010

ORDER


Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WayanadConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 117
1. P.K.Ibrahim,Puthiyetti kandy house,Mundakutty post,Kuppadithara.Kerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Mammootty,Mobile city sale service and forgien goods,Padinjarathara.Kerala2. M/S Reliance Communications limited ,H Block,1st floor Dheeru bhai,Ambani knoweldge city,Navi Mumbai,Mharashthra.Mharashthra.MumbaiMumbai ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 20 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 

Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:
 


 

The gist of the case is as follows:-


 

The Complainant enquired about the 2nd Opposite Party's offer of the “own the value added service” with the 1st Opposite Party and the 1st Opposite Party explained that if the consumer pay Rs.50/- as Sim charge, they will enter a charge for Rs.25/- that day itself and from the next day onwards recharge for Rs.5/- will be entered automatically and thus a recharge for Rs.475/- can be availed by the consumer.

2. Believing the assurance of 1st Opposite Party, the Complainant paid Rs.50/- to the 2nd Opposite Party and bought a Reliance Mobile Sim card on 17.1.2009. The 1st Opposite Party supplied the catalog and brochure along with the Sim card. Even on the next day the phone did not get charged and the Complainant informed it to the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party assured that the matter would be cleared immediately. The Complainant awaited in vain and on 30.01.2009 approached the 1st Opposite Party. But the 1st Opposite Party did not take any action to solve the complaint. The Complainant demanded for the return of his I D Card and Photo which he had entrusted with the 1st Opposite Party at the time of buying the Sim card. But the 1st Opposite Party refused to return that.


 

3. The Complainant has heavy loss because of the non compliance of the offer of Opposite Parties. One Mr. Muhammed Karim had offered an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the house construction of the Complainant and the Complainant has given the mobile number. But he could not call the complainant as the mobile has not got recharged. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- which he has lost because of the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. He also prays for a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and other costs.


 

4. At the initial stage, Opposite Parties have not appeared and have not filed any version. So they were set exparte and an exparte order was passed on 31.10.2009. Then on 04.01.2010, the 1st Opposite Party filed a petition to set aside exparte order and that was allowed on cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant. The 1st Opposite Party filed the version stating that he has not sold any Sim Card to the Complainant or he has not made any offer to him regarding any scheme. The 1st Opposite Party states that it is a false complaint and it is evident from the fact that the Complainant has not mentioned any number in the complaint. The Complainant has not sustained any loss as he has mentioned in the complaint. There is no evidence to show that he has lost Rs.10,000/- because of the defective Sim Card. The 1st Opposite Party does not know the Complainant and he has not sold the Sim card to the Complainant. Hence, the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.


 

5. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. 1st Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit and no documents was filed on behalf of the 1st Opposite Party.


 

6. The points to be considered are as follows:-

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

  2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief.


 

7. Point No.1:- The exparte order was made in a situation where the allegations of the Complainant were not denied and considering that the Complainant is not using the Sim card. The 1st Opposite Party has appeared and filed version specifically denying the allegations of the Complainant. It is already found in the earlier order that there is no such scheme as alleged by the Complainant mentioned in the brochure. As pointed out by the 1st Opposite Party, the Complainant has not even mentioned the number of the Sim Card. Hence, liability cannot be attributed to both the Opposite Parties. So, point No.1 is found against the Complainant.

8. Point No.2:- As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.


 

Hence, the Complaint is dismissed.


 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 20th March 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

Nil.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Sim Card.

A2. User's guide.


 

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

 


 


HONORABLE SAJI MATHEW, MemberHONABLE JUSTICE K GHEEVARGHESE, PRESIDENTHONORABLE P Raveendran, Member