BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 14th JUNE 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.91/2014
(Admitted on 15.03.2014)
Mr. Balasubrahmanya Bhat J,
Aged 37 years,
S/o Soorya Narayana Bhat,
Residingt at Bolambi House,
Post: Ujire,
Belthangady Tq, D.K. Dist
…......COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri KN)
VERSUS
M/s Systema Shyam Tele Services Ltd,
(M.T.S Mobile Services)
Salarpuria Touchstone, No.15/3,
Ground Floor, Outer Ring Road,
Varthur Hobli, Bangalore 560103,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory.
…......OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri KSNR)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite party alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant claims he availed the services of MTS mobile and using MTS Nos. 9141886601 and 9141854121 for his office work has he is working as State Secretary of Savayava Krishikara Mahamandala-Savayava Krishi Parivara of which second number is used to the Thirthahalli office. At the time of purchase of the mobile connection it was made clear to complainant by opposite party that their services are available in all the towns of Karnataka and having good network. But however on 19.10.2013 while at Thirthahalli he was unable to get contact and complaint was made as per complaint No. Oct/3414 he was informed it will be rectified within 30 working hours and there was no positive response and on 25.10.2013 complaint No. Oct/4967 was also made. On 26.10.2013 the office staff of the complainant again complaint about the network problem and was informed that instead of recording the complaint the same will be forwarded to higher official. Despite including a letter to Ms. Vijayalakshmi Swaminathan dated 2.11.2013 the grievance of complaint were not rectified for want of network service by opposite party resulting in mental agony and due to no network service provided by opposite party alleging deficiency in service. He alleges cause of action arouses within the jurisdiction of this Forum on the part of the opposite party seek reliefs of compensation of Rs.50,000 as claimed in the complaint.
2. Opposite party in the version contends about raising the complaint not coverage related issued and 30 hours’ time is given based on the type of complaint. The backend team of opposite party tried to contact complainant to collect more details but was not reachable in spite of best effort hence opposite party could not assist. As complainant’s previous complaint was closed, one more complaint was raised on 25.10.2013 in complaint No. oct/4967 in the other MTS No.9141854121 the consent team of opposite party worked as per opposite party there was MIN mismatch and hence the complainant asked to replace the SMI as resolution. Opposite party informed complainant this SIM replacement and the complainant replaced both the number and returned to appellate through e-mail id in regional language. The complaint of the complainant is coming within the jurisdiction of Thirthahalli of the Shimoga District Forum. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
3. In support of the above complaint Mr. Balasubrahmanya Bhat J filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered to the interrogatories served on him and produced documents not marked. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. M.S Rajesh (RW1) Authorized Signatory of System Shyam Teleservice Ltd, also filed affidavit evidence and answered to the interrogatories served on him.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of argument. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows
Point No. (i): Negative
Point No. (ii) & (iii): Does not survive for consideration
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINTS No. (i): The complainant does not make a single mention as to on what aspect he filed the complaint before this Forum at Mangalore when all the allegation as to the occurrence of allegation in deficiency of service at Thirthahalli of Shimoga District. As seen from the answer furnished to the interrogatories by complainant the only ground mentioned by complainant that he purchased the mobile handset and obtained the sim at Ujire within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In fact there is no mention in the entire complaint that mobile hand set was purchased at Ujire and sim was obtained by opposite party at Ujire. However merely because the mobile was purchased and sim were secured by complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum does not give raise to the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. When the alleged acts of deficiency in service occurred even according to complainant at Thirthahalli within the jurisdiction of Shimoga District Forum. Hence we are of the view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on this score itself the complaint is liable to be rejected. Hence we answer point No.1 in the negative.
6. POINTS NO.(ii) & (iii): In view of the answer is negative to the point No.1 these points does not survive for consideration.
7. POINTS No. (iv): Wherefore the following
ORDER
The complaint is rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 6 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 14th June 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Balasubrahmanya Bhat J
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Nil
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Mr. M.S Rajesh, Authorized Signatory of System Shyam Teleservice Ltd
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 14.06.2017 PRESIDENT
