Ellikkal Thomas filed a consumer case on 31 Mar 2008 against Propriter in the Wayanad Consumer Court. The case no is 88/2007 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Kerala
Wayanad
88/2007
Ellikkal Thomas - Complainant(s)
Versus
Propriter - Opp.Party(s)
31 Mar 2008
ORDER
CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North consumer case(CC) No. 88/2007
Ellikkal Thomas
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Propriter
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The gist of the complaint is as follows. The Complainant purchased a coin operated pay phone box from the Opposite Party on 10.05.2006. At the time of purchase the coin box was working properly and later on 08.07.2006 the instrument was recharged. The telephone instrument became dead from 10.08.2006 and the same was informed to the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 took away the instrument to their office at Bathery for repair. The Complainant demanded the return of the repaired coin box in several occasions. The Opposite Party was not ready to give (Contd....... 2) - 2 - the complainant the repaired coin box till the date of petition. The Complainant also filed petition in Mananthavady Police Station. The mater could not be settled even after it. The Complainant had a loss of Rs.10,000/-. A lawyer notice was also sent to the opposite Party and it too was not responded. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give the Complainant Rs.10,000/- towards the compensation. The Opposite Party No.1 filed version on their appearance and there after Opposite Party No.2 was supplemented. The Complainant availed the connection of idea mobile on 19.9.2006 including the terminal plus charges, battery plus antina along with recharge coupen worth of Rs.1,125/- and coin box of Global India Company. The instrument had the warranty of service. The connection was in used by the complainant for two months and during that period it was recharged twice for Rs.1,125/- at a time. The Opposite Party No.1 was informed of the complaint and accessories were taken to the instrument at Bathery for repair. The Complainant was also informed that the system has no complaint and if the Complainant is not interested to proceed with the connection it can be paid back to the Idea Mobile Company and they will afford him the deposit amount. The Complainant was not ready to give the Opposite Party the battery of idea connection and when the charger terminal and antina were given to the Complainant he was not ready to receive it. Instead the Complainant was with untenable demand to get Rs.4,750/- along with the amount of the recharge Rs.1,125/-. The dispute was not settled it tried for. The Complainant filed a petition in Mananthavady Police after filing complaint in Bathery Police. A lawyer notice was sent by the Complainant in which the amount claimed is Rs.5,500/-. The Complainant got BSNL connection. Simultaneously the Complainant was not ready to give up the idea connection, making use of the coin box supplied by the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party is still enjoying the connection. The allegation against the Opposite Party that the coin box taken by them are not paid back are absolutely (Contd........3) - 3 - false. The complaint is absolutely baseless and more over motivated to extract money. The Complainant is still enjoying the BSNL connection with phone No.04936 246650 using the same coin box supplied by the Opposite Party No.1. The complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost of the Opposite Party. The supplemented Opposite Party No.2 filed version. It is contended that the Opposite Party No.2 has no connection in the dealing with the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and even in the complaint the name of the supplemented Opposite Party is not alleged and no other information was received by the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 is an unnecessary party and they may be delated. The points in consideration are: 1.Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in the act of the Opposite Parties?. 2.Relief and costs. Point No.1: The Complainant is examined as PW1. The sale of the coin box and its accessories are admitted by the Opposite Party No.1. Ext.A1 is the users manual of Global India. The dealer of the coin box as per Ext.A1 is the Tele Tex System, Bathery. The warranty certificate in Ext.A1 specifies repair/replacement of defective part free of charge during the warranty period. Ext A2 is the receipt given by Sulthan Bathery Police and Ext.A3 is the receipt given by the Mananthavady Police. Ext.A4 is the copy of lawyer notice sent to the Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainant is that the coin box issued by the Opposite Party No.1 was not paid back after repair. The Opposite Party was examined as OPW1. On examination of the (Contd........4) - 4 - Complainant it is admitted that he is in use of the coin box with BSNL connection and the coin box has no complaint. The phone number of this connection is 246650 and more over it is deposed by the Complainant he is not in need of the accessories which are taken by the Opposite Party. The Complainant is in use of the coin box with BSNL connection for which no unit is required. The supplemented Opposite Party No.2 has no connection in the dealing between the Complainant and Opposite Party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Point No.2: The inferences drawn out in the point No.1 is found against the Complainant detail discussion of the point No.2 is not required in this juncture. The Complainant is not entitled for any cost or compensation. In the result the complaint is dismissed no order upon cost. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31st day of March 2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. (Contd........5) 5 - APPENDIX Witnesses for the Complainant: PW1. Thomas. Complainant. Witnesses for the Opposite Party: OPW1. Sathianandan. Business. Exhibits for the Complainant: A1. Users's Manual A2. Copy of the receipt. dt:22.09.2006. A3. Copy of the receipt. dt:23.09.2006 A4. Lawyer notice. dt:21.11.2006. A5. Postal Receipt. dt:21.11.2006. A6. Acknowledgement. Exhibits for the Opposite Party: Nil. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. Compared by: M/