By Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President,
1. Complainant applied to opposite party for one wireless CDMA telephone connection and two CDMA mobile connections through their dealer at Edappal who is third opposite party herein. The connections were sanctioned and complainant was provided with phone numbers as 0494-6450963, 9249450963 and 9249550963. When complainant received the instruments from third opposite party he found that the wireless telephone and mobile handsets were made in China and of low quality. It is stated that the instruments were not of the quality offered by third opposite party. The complainant then returned the instruments. Opposite party did not issue any bill for Rs.3,000/- collected from the complainant. He requested to replace the instruments with good quality instruments and also to issue bills for the amount collected from him. But opposite parties did not heed to his request. While so, complainant received monthly bill issued by opposite parties for the said connection. Even though he informed that he has not taken the connection opposite parties continued to issue the bills. Complainant had taken these connections for his business. He is running a business concern of cleaning water tanks. That he printed brochures with these new phone numbers. But as opposite parties failed to provide the connection along with new instruments as requested by complainant the brochures became useless. Complainant incurred heavy loss due to this. He contacted third opposite party and other opposite parties at their offices at Tirur, Edappal and Ernakulam regarding his grievance. It is stated that he incurred Rs.500/- towards telephone charges and Rs.9,500/- as loss. Hence this complaint praying to allow the loss suffered by him.
2. First and second opposite parties filed a combined version. It is admitted that first opposite party is dealing in providing telecommunications services in India. That second opposite party is only an employee of first opposite party. The averment that complainant applied for one CDMA wireless connection 2 cellular connections and that he was provided with telephone numbers after sanctioning the connection is admitted by opposite parties. It is stated that all the three connections were activated. That hardly after a month after activation of the connections, the complainant had approached third opposite party with complaint to the mobile hand sets. He did not report any complaint about wireless telephone connection or the instrument. That 1st opposite party has not constituted third opposite party to market any cellular handsets. The distributorship of 1st opposite party through third opposite party is confined to marketing of telephone connections only. That 1st opposite party is not liable for defects of mobile handsets. Complainant has used the connections till September, 2009. The contention that he did not take delivery of the instruments is false. After activation bills were issued. Complainant did not pay. As the usage charges were negligible opposite party has waived the claim for the amount due under the bills. That there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
3. Third opposite party filed a separate version specifically denying all allegations in the complaint. It is stated that third opposite party was the service provider of post paid connections of 1st and second opposite parties. Thereafter third opposite party stopped the business and terminated the contract of distribution. Later on previous personal acquaintances the complainant requested third opposite party to supply a walky talky cordless wireless fixed phone, a 7 digit handset and 2 sim cards. He paid Rs.1,600/- towards cost of handsets and Rs.100/- and Rs.200/- each for the Sim cards. He also paid Rs.1,000/- (Rs.500/- each) as deposit for post paid connections. This amount was given to 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The instruments were provided by 1st and second opposite parties. Complainant used the connections and handsets. He has not reported any complaint to third opposite party. That complainant has not returned any handset or instrument to third opposite party. He has direct dealings with 1st and 2nd opposite parties. That the complaint is filed in collusion with 1st and 2nd opposite party as this opposite party has stopped the business deals with the other opposite parties. That there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
4. Evidence consists of the affidavit field by complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 marked for him. First and second opposite parties filed a joint affidavit. Third opposite party filed separate affidavit. No documents marked for opposite parties.
5. The allegation of the complainant is that he returned the three instruments as he found them to be of substandard quality. He does not specifically state the date of purchase or the date of return. He has not stated the amount paid by him for each product. So also there is no specific affirmations as to what was the defect in quality noticed by him and as to what was the standard/quality that was assured by opposite parties. Apart from the vague affirmations there is no evidence adduce to substantiate these contentions. Ext.A3 bills prove that the connections were activated. The use is very nominal. The total amount due as per the bills in these three connections is Rs.1,763/- only. Out of this amount opposite party has credited Rs.1,000/- which was paid as security deposit. The balance being negligible opposite party has waived the amount. The complainant does not seek refund or replacement of the instruments. He prays only for the loss incurred. There is no evidence placed before us to establish that the handsets and wireless fixed phone instrument were defective. There is no correspondence evidencing the grievance alleged by him. Complainant has failed to prove the contentions put forward by him. We find no merits in the complaint.
6. In the result complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dated this 10th day of November, 2010.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5 Ext.A1 : Advertisement printed by complainant. Ext.A2 : Cash/Credit sale bill dated, 11-8-2008 for Rs.6,300/- from Soffia Print Pack to complainant. Ext.A3 (series) : Bills (3 Nos.) from Tata Indicom Tele Services to complainant. Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 01-12-2008 from first opposite party to complainant. Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice dated,08-01-2009 from opposite party's counsel to complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, MEMBER
| | [HONOURABLE MRS. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI] PRESIDENT | | 
