By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President 1. The say of the Complainant is that on 16-4-98 he subscribed with opposite party No.1 for a BPL mobile connection. He paid Rs.3260/- towards connection charges and Rs.5000/- towards cost of mobile phone. He was not supplied with a mobile phone even though he was provided with a mobile phone number as 9846086348. 2nd opposite party issued two bills for rent. He alleges that opposite <br /> <br /> parties had not erected tower to provide connection to those residing at Tirurkkad. That act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 was returned as addressee left without instructions. Service was effected by publication. He failed to appear and was set exparte on 17-10-2007. Opposite party No.2 has filed version admitting the payment of Rs.3260/- towards connection charges. That complainant was provided with connection and phone number as stated in the complaint. His connection was activated and hence bills were issued for rent only. Opposite party No.2 is unaware of payment of Rs.5000/- towards mobile phone to opposite party No.1 and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant has filed affidavit. Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of complainant. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. Due to vacancy in the office of the President in 2003 there was no sitting of the Forum a long time. The case came up for hearing before us first on 6-8-2007. On 22-10-2007 complainant filed affidavit and both sides were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. Opposite party No.2 admits receiving an amount of Rs.3260/-. It is submitted that Rs.2000/- was received towards security deposit and Rs.1260/- towards activation charges. Opposite party No.2 submits that on receiving the activation charge is to give access to the mobile network by allotting mobile number. The procurement of hand set/mobile phone can be either from opposite party No.2 or from any other agency. Complainant has no case that Rs.5000/- was paid to opposite party No.2. It is undisputed that he was provided with a mobile number and his connection was activated. His grievance is that he was not supplied with mobile phone. Ext.P1 and P2 bills show that only rent has been assessed. The bills do not sow any call charges. Complainant has proved that opposite party No.1 has not supplied him a mobile phone even after receiving Rs.5000/-. We find the act of opposite party No.1 amounts to unfair trade practice. Complainant has failed to prove any cause of action against opposite party No.2. Hence opposite party No.2 is exonerated from liability. <br /> <br /> 5. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and order opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with interest @ 12% with effect from 16-4-1998 to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 9th day of November, 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.P1 to P5<br /> Ext.P1 : Bill dated, 3-6-1998 for Rs.825.30<br /> Ext.P2 : Bill dated, 3-6-1998 for Rs.630.00<br /> Ext.P3 : Notice dated, 30-8-1999.<br /> Ext.P4 : Visiting card of opposite party No.1.<br /> Ext.P5 : Visiting card of opposite party No.1. <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br />