Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This takes an exception to the judgment and order dtd.31.05.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Amravati in Consumer Complaint No. CC/11/34.

Brief facts in this appeal are that:-

1.      Appellant M/s Choudhari Services who is running proprietary business of selling the recharge cards of Reliance Mobile Co. by purchasing the same from dealer. Respondent No.1 / original complainant Mr Sachin Dod purchased a recharge card of `30/- from the appellant on 11.04.2009 and on the same day before recharging the same on his mobile, he scratched the code number but he found two digits are wiped out. Therefore, he contacted the appellant and requested to help him.  But appellants did not help him.  Therefore, he sustained loss and also mental torture, etc.  Therefore, he made complaint with District Consumer Forum, claiming compensation of `25,000/- towards mental torture and `6,000/- towards cost of proceedings and cost of `30/- of recharge voucher, etc.

2.      On hearing both the sides, District Consumer Forum, Amravati partly allowed the claim, directing the o.p.Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the complainant `7,530/-, jointly and severally with interest @ 12% p.a.

3.      Feeling aggrieved by the judgement & order, the o.p. No.1 filed this appeal.

4.      We heard Adv.Mr M V Raut for the appellant and perused the copy of impugned judgement & order and also copies of written submissions filed by the appellant, rejoinder of respondent No.1 and notes of argument, etc.

5.      It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that recharge voucher was not at all sold by appellant to the respondent No.1 / complainant but the Forum relying on the words of the complainant, wrongly held that the voucher was purchased by the complainant from the appellant, etc.  Further, he submitted that it was the mistake on the part of respondent No.1 / complainant while wiping out the digits from the recharge voucher and appellant is not responsible for the same.  Moreover, he submitted that if at all the recharge voucher found defective, the complainant / respondent No.1 should have contacted o.p. No.2 / respondent No.2 – Reliance Communication Ltd.  It is not the responsibility of appellant to render any services as expected by the complainant, etc. 

6.      We find no force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the appellant / o.p.No.1 sells recharge vouchers, purchasing from the dealer, but he has not maintained the record.  Therefore, the Forum has rightly held that the recharge voucher was purchased by the complainant from the o.p. No.1 / appellant.  Moreover, when the appellant sells the recharge voucher, it is his responsibility to render the service whenever required. It cannot be accepted that the appellant has not any responsibility. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgement & order of the Forum. Hence, no interference is warranted.

7.                For the reasons, the appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be rejected.

Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

1.                 Appeal is dismissed summarily.

2.                 No order as to cost.

3.                 Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 02.08.2011.

sj