(CIRCUIT BENCH AT VIJAYAWADA)

F.A.No.1662/2007  against C.D.No.432/2007,   Dist. Forum,Guntur.               

Between:

Vanukuri Usha Kiran Reddy,

D/o.Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 29 years,

Advocate, R/o.Ankireddypalem Village,

Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District.             …   Appellant/

                                                                     Complainant

              And

Pioneer Teleservices,

Franchisee  of Tata Tele Services Limited,

Rep. by its Authorized Person,

Door No.5-87-73, Main Road,

Lakshmipuram, Guntur.                                …  Respondent/

                                                                     Opp.party 

Counsel for the Appellant       :       Dr.A.M.Krishna         

Counsel for the Respondent   :                    --                                                         

CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

And

SRI. K.SATYANAND , HON’BLE  MEMBER.

                                              TUESDAY, THE  SIXTH DAY OF APRIL.

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order :(Per  Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

****

            Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.432/2007  on the file of District Forum, Guntur,   the complainant preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Tata Indicom mobile set  with MDN 9290020974  as her cell/mobile number  and took mobile connection for an amount of Rs.2300/-   on 21.5.2006. The complainant was made to believe  that he  can have unlimited free talk time to any other Tata subscriber within the limits of Andhra Pradesh.  The complainant submits that to her surprise she  was charged for call to local Tata numbers  and the opposite party did not even supply the call details to the complainant  when she personally contacted the office.  The complainant  got issued a notice on 21.3.2007   calling upon them to attend to the grievance. The complainant submits that the  opposite party did not rectify the defect and restore the unlimited free talk time  to local TATA Indicom from  her  MDN 9290020974  nor paid back  her charges that were unauthorisedly  extracted from her. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to restore unlimited free talk time  to tele connection MDN.9290020974  of the complainant and to  pay the entire amount of call charges unauthorisedly extracted from the complainant with full details, to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-  to the complainant towards mental agony and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs. 

        Opposite party filed written version stating that the  complainant  is not a consumer since the   phone connection was  taken in the name of  one S.Venkateswara Reddy, Hyderabad  but  not in the complainant’s name and the Tata Indicom   phone set was purchased on 21.5.2006   at Hyderabad whereas the complainant herein resides in Guntur.  Opposite party submits that at the time of purchase the terms and conditions entered into between the complainant and the dealer are binding on both the parties and this opposite party is  neither a party to the transaction nor is there any  privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party.   Opposite party  further contend that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 

         The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 and A2 and Ex.B1  dismissed the complaint  as not maintainable. 

        Aggrieved by the  dismissal order of the District Forum,  the complainant preferred this appeal. 

The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased a  Tata Indicom mobile  set from  authorized  dealer  i.e. Lakshmi Sai Enterprises, Mobile World beside Andhra Bank, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad  and the connection is in the name of  one S.Venkateswara Reddy, Hyderabad.  It is also not in dispute that the  mobile set is being  used by the complainant. The contention of the respondent/opposite party  is that the complainant has no locus standi to file a complaint since the connection is in the name of S.Venkateswara Reddy. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the complainant herein  is a beneficiary of the  said service and therefore he is the consumer.  We observe from the record that the set  was  admittedly purchased from an authorized dealer Laxmi Sai Enterprises, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad and the complaint has been filed against  Pioneer Teleservices  Franchisee  of Tata Teleservices Ltd., Guntur. We are of the considered view that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. dealer  from whom the complainant purchased  the mobile set.  Even on merits,  a careful perusal of the material on record does not evidence that the complainant was promised free talk time to  Tata Indicom users   within the limits of Andhra Pradesh.  Unless her contention is supported by any agreement or terms and conditions or rules there of,  we are of the considered view that the opposite party herein cannot be made liable  for any act of deficiency in service.  The complainant failed to establish her case  by filing any documentary evidence in support of her case.  Keeping in view the afore mentioned reasons this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 

        In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 

                                                                                                        Sd./MEMBER

                                                                                                        Sd./MEMBER

                                                                                                        DT. 6.4.2010