SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)<br /> The case of the complainant is that he purchased a hand set, maker of Philips twist from the opposite party on 14-10-1998 and he subscribed a connection on 15-10-1999 from the opposite parties. The handset was also purchased from the opposite party. Within the 1st two month itself the said mobile phone is in trouble on several times. He complained before the opposite party and one of the representative of the opposite party replaced the earlier set and given another set. The replaced instrument is a second hand one. Thereafter complainant personally approached the opposite party on 23-03-1999. But the opposite parties have not cured the grievance of the complainant in completely. Thereafter he is getting uncontrolled bills not in terms of the actual. Thereafter the complainant given a letter requesting him to compensate for a sum of Rs. 26,950/-. But the opposite party has not given any reply or any positive action. Hence he preferred the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency of service.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite parties filed version contenting that the manufacturer of the mobile phone is a necessary party for the determination of this case. There is no mistake in any of the bills issued by the opposite party the hand set is not a defective one. The allegation to the effect that subsequently the opposite party has given a second hand set is absolutely false. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.<br /> 3. Considering the rival contentions of both parties this Forum frame the following issue:<br /> a. “Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?”<br /> 4. The complainant filed 3 documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P3. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence. But he was cross-examined by the opposite parties.<br /> 5. One of the main contentions of the opposite parties is that CDRF of Alappuzha has no territorial jurisdiction to hear this complaint. This fact was specifically pleaded in their version. In the decision reported in IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC), the Honourable National Commission held that the place were complainant residing has jurisdiction if the opposite party has a branch office. In the present case complainant has no specific case that the opposite parties has a branch office within the jurisdiction of Alappuzha CDRF. The complainant has not adduced any evidence for substantiating this point. But he stated that the transaction took place at his residence, except this allegation there is no evidence produced. Hence this Forum finds that there is no jurisdiction for hearing the complaint.<br /> 6. As per Ext. P1 it can be seen that the mobile phone was replaced by the BPL mobile. In this document there is a specific column regarding customer’s remark. But no remark is seen from this document. Both the customer and the Engineer have signed this document. This shows that he has no complaint at the time of replacement about the handset. Further it is the duty of the complainant to prove that the handset given to him is a defective one. The complainant has not produced the defective handset before this Forum or not taken any steps for making an independent scientific analysis about the quality of the handset through this Forum. In the absence of any piece of evidence, mere allegation will not sustain. The allegation can be considered only if the opposite party admits it. Here the opposite parties have specifically denied the allegation of the complainant. In the absence of any evidence the complaint cannot be allowed.<br /> <br /> 7. In the above circumstances the complaint stands dismissed. There is no order on cost.<br /> Complaint dismissed.<br /> Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 28th day of May, 2008.<br /> Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah<br /> Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan<br /> Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Evidence of the Complainant:- <br /> <br /> PW1 - K.Sasidharan<br /> Ext. P1 14-10-1998 Invoice cum Delivery Challan No. KTM/162<br /> Ext. P2 10-10-1998 Individual Subscription form<br /> Ext. P3 12-10-1998 Individual Subscription Form<br /> <br /> Evidence of the Opposite parties: - NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> // True Copy //<br /> <br /> By Order<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> To<br /> Complainant/Opposite parties/SF<br /> <br /> Typed by: Sh/-<br /> Compd by:<br />