KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 713/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 10.7.09 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRf, Alappuzha in OP.A.89/03 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. M/s Escotl Mobile Communications Ltd., : APPELLANTS A.36. Mohan, Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 44. (represented by its authorized person C.Ramachandran) 2. The Manager, Escotel, H.H.Y.S.Telecom, H.H.Y.S.Road, Kayamkulam. (By Adv.V.K.Mohankumar) Vs. M/s Oriental Associates, : RESPONDENT P.R.P Towers, Kayamkulam, Rep. By Sadath Lebba, Manager, Foreign Trade. (By Adv.Bijily Joseph) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Escotal Mobile Communication in OP.No.A.89/03 in the file of CDRF. Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant as well as cost of Rs.500/-. 2.It is the case of the complainant that he was having a mobile phone connection availed from the opposite party. It is his case that the foreign trade manager of the complainant along with business executives visited Malaysia from 2.3.03 to 6.3.03 and that he applied for ISD roaming facility in Malasia and a sum of Rs.8760 was paid vide cheque. According to him the facility was not made available in Malaysia and the very purpose of the trip was defeated on account of the non availability of the ISD facility. He has sought for refund of the amount of Rs.8760/- with compensation of Rs.50000/- and Rs.41,240/- towards loss of reputation. 3. The opposite party/appellant has contended that the cheque issued for a sum of Rs.8760/- vide cheque No.837469 dated.27.2.03 was dishonoured. On receiving the cheque the roaming facility was activated. But the cheque was dishonoured on 3.3.03 due to insufficiency of funds. Hence the international roaming facility was barred. The above fact was intimated to the complainant in time. 4. The evidence adduced before the Forum consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1; Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B5. 5. We find that the Forum has not considered the contention of the opposite party/appellant at all. On the otherhand the Forum has noted that the complainant received the welcome message providing the facility but subsequently the facility was not available. We find that the opposite party has produced the copy of the dishonoured cheque as well as dishonour memo vide Ext.B1 and B3 respectively. The appellant cannot be made available to provide the facility when the cheque was dishonoured in the absence of any consideration there can be no liability to provide services as claimed by the complainant. In the circumstance we find that the order of the Forum cannot be sustained. The same is set aside, The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps | 
