Date of filing : 27-07-2013
Date of order : 10-11-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.173/2013
Dated this, the 10th day of November 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Amith.S.J, : Complainant
S/o.K.Janardhana,
C/o.Archana Enterprises,
M.G.Road, Kasaragod
(Adv.A.Balakrishnan Nair,Kasaragod)
1 Muneer, Bismillaha Trade Links, : Opposite parties
Super Complex, Chakara Bazar, Kasaragod.
2 M/s Reliance Communication Ltd,
Apco Towers, IInd floor, City Road,
Calicut.1
(Adv.Prasanna Narayanan,Kannur)
O R D E R
SMT.BEENA, K.G, MEMBER
The gist of the complaint is that complainant had obtained a reliance coin box connection with telephone No.04994 326332 six years back from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is the service provider. Complainant recharged the connection regularly. But during March 2013 the phone was not activated and he surrendered the instrument to opposite party No.1. After 20 days opposite party No.1 replaced the instrument with another one. But that instrument also had the same defect. The complainant was constrained to return the second instrument also to opposite party No.1 within 20 days. Eventhough more than Rs.5,000/- were there in the account of opposite party for the last 5 months they did not reactivate the phone connection. Complainant had issued registered lawyer notice but it was not properly replied. Hence the complaint is alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on them and hence the complaint.
2. Opposite party filed version admitting the connection of coin box with telephone No. 04994 3263632 given to the complainant six years back from opposite party who is the wholesale distributor of reliance phone connection. Opposite party in their version submits that he is doing the business of recharging of various mobile service providers including reliance the coin box connection of reliance is directly given by the company or its franchisee. The amount if any deposited will be naturally with the Reliance company the replacing of the coin box instrument is also done by Reliance company. The recharges are no authority for capacity to replace any coin box instrument or to connect any amount in the name of coin box instrument. The complainant never surrendered any coin box instrument to this opposite party and this opposite party never replaced any coin box instrument of the complainant. No amount of the complainant is with this opposite party. According to opposite party the complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant filed IA 266/13 to implead supplemental opposite partyNo.2 which is allowed after hearing.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exts A1 and A2 marked.
5. PW1 in his cross examination stated that it is not correct to say that first opposite party is not the wholesale distributor no document is produced to show that opposite party No.1 is the wholesale distributor. No warranty card is supplied with the phone instrument and connection. Complainant have no document to show that second instrument is also surrendered. While going through the deposition of DW1 they are the recharging centers used to recharg coin box. But the instrument does not provided by DW1. Coin box instrument is available in the market. It is not correct to say that opposite party No.2 supplied the instrument through opposite partyNo.1. Terminal of the coin box is supplied by the Reliance company directly. DW1 further admits that the complainant had sent a registered lawyer notice to opposite partyNo.1 to re-activate the instrument. But it was not properly replied. As per the deposition of DW1 he was undergoing treatment in a hospital, but after recovering from illness if opposite party No.1 properly explained the reason or if he had given a reply to the lawyer notice some times this issue can be settled earlier. Complainant has every right to get his doubts cleared by opposite party No.1. Evading from a legal notice amounts to deficiency in service. In his deposition DW1 further states that it is not correct to say that the instrument is not repaired. It is not his responsibility. It is not correct to say that it is repaired in the first occasion and second time not repaired. While perusing affidavits of both parties and Ext.A1 we are of the opinion that opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant, as they jointly failed to reactivate the phone and replace the instrument.
Hence the complaint is allowed and opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant (which is in the account of opposite party No.2) with a cost of Rs.3000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which Rs.5000/- will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 03-06-2013 Copy of lawyer notice.
PW1. Amith.S.J.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
