By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone with connection from the 1st respondent on November 2006. He paid Rs.1200/- for the purchase. The number given to him was 9388985463. But the mobile phone did not work from the date of issue of the connection. The complainant complained to the 1st respondent about the non-functioning of the mobile phone many times. But the defect was not rectified. Instead of that, a bill for Rs.610/- dt. 25.2.07 was sent to him. As the mobile phone has not worked the respondents are not entitled to collect the bill. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The respondents filed a counter statement to the following effect. The respondents provided the mobile connection No.9388985463 to the complainant. The complainant used the connection till March 2007. The respondents are unaware of the alleged non-functioning of the mobile hand set. The respondents are only the service providers. The defect in the hand set is to be get rectified from the manufacturers. The manufacturer is a necessary party in the case. The bills were issued to the complainant on the basis of his usage and so he is liable to pay the bill amount. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to get the relief sought for?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 and P2 and MO1. The respondents did not adduce any evidence.
5. Points: The complainant’s case is that he could not use the mobile phone from the date of its purchase. But the respondents issued bills worth Rs.610/-. Even though the complainant complained about the non-functioning of the phone, the defect was not cured. Since the complainant could not make use the phone he claims that the respondents are not entitled to collect the bill amount. The respondents agreed that they provided the mobile connection. But they are unaware of the non-functioning of the mobile phone. If there is any manufacturing defects to the phone it is to be rectified through the manufacturer. The bills are issued on the basis of the usage and the respondents claim that the complainant is liable to pay the bills.
6. The respondents agreed that they provided the mobile number and connection to the complainant. But they have stated that they are unaware of the non-functioning of the phone. Ext. P1 is the disputed bill. It is perused. The charges for the period are stated as 25.1.07 to 15.2.07. But details of calls made during the period are not entered in the bill. Unlike other telephone services the respondents do not provide Sim cards. Their subscribers are solely depends up on their net work services. MO1 reveals the purchase made by the complainant and the non-functioning of the device. Hence the respondents are liable to compensate the loss.
7. In the result the complaint is allowed and the impugned Ext. P1 bill is cancelled and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.1200/- (Rupees one thousand and two hundred only) with cost Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If not, Rs.1200/- will carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 10th day of October 2011.
