IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of June, 2011
Filed on 24.07.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.156/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties-
Sri.Vinod.V.K, 1. The Manager, Regd. Office,
Vinu Nivas (Kattezhathu), Videocon Telecommunications Ltd.,
Eramalloor.P.O., 3055, Sector-70, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160071.
Cherthala,
Alappuzha, 2. The Manager, Circle Office (Kerala),
Kerala-688 537. Videocon Telecommunications Ltd.,
(By Adv.C.Muraleedharan) South Point Building, Ravipuram,
M.G.Road, Cochin-682 015.
(By Adv.Miji S Mony)
3. The Manager, Dealer of Videocon
Telecommunications Ltd., Xtral Tel,
Arookutty, Vaduthala Jn.,
Cherthala, Alappuzha, Kerala.
4. The Manager, Retailer of Videocon
Telecommunications Ltd., Time Point,
Eramalloor.P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha,
Kerala-688 537.
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainants’ case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant, on 18th June 2010 purchased a sim card from the opposite party for his mobile handset. The same was recharged for an amount of Rs.399/-(Rupees three hundred ninety nine only). Notwithstanding all the material documents have been duly produced, the opposite parties on 26th June 2010 deactivated the outgoing facility of the mobile connection of the complainant. Thereafter, without any particular reason the incoming facility the complainant enjoyed was also neutralized. The complainant, time and again contacted the opposite parties, but the efforts yielded no results. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite parties 1 & 2 turned up and filed version. The opposite parties contend that the complainant is not their consumer. The complainant never bought or hired their service. The sim card allegedly purchased by the complainant actually belonged to one Mr. Faizal. When the opposite parties realized that there was some sort of discrepancy with regard to the sim card so activated as if the same belonged to the aforesaid Faizal, the opposite parties forthwith contacted the complainant and requested him to submit the relevant documents. But the complainant was recalcitrant and reluctant to file the documents, notwithstanding sufficient time was duly tendered to him. With the result, the opposite parties were inevitably forced to deactivate the connection allegedly provided to the complainant. The complaint is without any basis. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties assert.
2. The evidence of the complainant consist of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1 and that of 4th opposite party as PW2, and the documents Exbts. Al to A2 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, its manager was examined as RW1 and the documents Exbts. B1 to B5 were marked.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the opposite party committed any deficiency of service?
(b) Cost and compensation?
4. We carefully perused the materials put on record by the parties. The complainants’ case is that despite the relevant records being duly produced, the opposite parties deactivated the sim card purchased from them. The opposite party forcefully contends that when there aroused confusion as to the sim card of the complainant with one Mr.Faizal, the opposite parties requested the complainant to produce the concerned documents with them. According to the opposite parties, the complainant was inflexibly obdurate, and declined to produce any document further. The opposite parties, having no way out were forced to deactivate the said sim card. On a plain perusal of the evidence available on record, it is seen that the opposite parties were ready to provide the mobile connection, provided the complainant tendered the related documents. That apart, it appears that there is no serious effort on the part of the complainant to prove the case of the complainant that the opposite parties were reluctant to activate the sim card despite the documents being produced. In this context, the opposite parties' version to the effect that the complainant's obdurate stand not to produce documents duly, led to the deactivation of the sim card in question inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum. Viewing in that perspective, we are of the view that the complainant without sufficient cause stuck to his stand which snowballed into this frivolous litigation. Needless to say the complaint is frivolous and vexatious, and is liable to be dismissed. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is liable for the unnecessary proceedings.
In what we have discussed above, the complaint is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is directed to pay the opposite parties an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Vinod.V.K (Witness)
PW2 - Rasheed.P.K (Court Witness)
Ext. A1 - Customer copy (photo copy)dated, 18.06.2010 Sim No.89918320011011170138
Ext. A2 - Copy of the sim card cover (videocon)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Mandapalli Mahesh Kumar (Witness)
Ext. B1 - Prepaid customer application form
Ext. B2 series - Copy of the customer details (5 pages)
Ext. B3 - Copy of the service profile by the opposite party
Ext. B4 - Copy of the pre paid distributor agreement dated, 02.02.2010 (30 pages)
Ext. B5 - Copy of order from CDRF, Faridabad dated, 09.10.2009 (3 pages)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
