By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member.
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant had purchased two mobile phones from the shops named as ‘ Cell palace’ and ‘Globus mobiles ‘ mobile situated within the jurisdiction of the opposite party. Due to the defects occurred to the phones, the complainant had approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram for adducing his grievances. But the process issued by the Commission could not be served the owner were wilfully changed shop address by remaining the name board exhibited on the shop. So the complainant submitted an application before the opposite party under Right to Information Act, 2005 to get details of the dealer who sold the phones to the complainant. But it was replied by the opposite party that no licences were issued in the names of ‘cell palace’ and ‘Globus mobiles ‘mobiles by them. Moreover the opposite party intimated that number of the shop rooms were clearly shown on the building. But it is averred by the complaint that there were no shop numbers affixed in the many buildings situated in “Gulf Bazar area of the jurisdiction of the opposite party. The opposite party failed to keep details of the licensees who are doing commercial activities in the shops and buildings situated in the area of the opposite party. It is alleged by the complainant that had the opposite party kept the details of the owners of ‘cell palace’ shop and ‘Global mobile ‘ shop the complainant could have succeed in the legal battle against them.. It is alleged that due the negligent and deficient acts of the opposite party, the complainant has lost opportunity to avail compensation from the owners of ‘Cell palace and ‘Global mobile ‘. So the complainant has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation and another Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version.
3. The opposite party denied allegations raised by the complainant and contended that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the complaint. The opposite party is the municipality of Tirur represented by its secretary. The Revenue Inspector or the opposite party appeared before the Commission with due authorisation for and on behalf of the opposite party. It is contended that the opposite party is used affix numbers of the shop room in a visible manner and everybody could be easily seen it and same was duly informed the complainant. It is further contended that if any renovation work was conducted in a particular buildings there is possibility for removing the same or change its portion. On the basis of application made by the complainant, the opposite party had made inspection of two shops named ‘ cell palace ‘ and ‘Global mobile ‘ and found that both sups were exhibited shop numbers properly and visibly . It is contended that the opposite party has made reply to the application of the complainant. The opposite party contended that they are absolved from any kind liability arised out of damage of mobile phone of the complainant. It is admitted that they did not issue licences to the shops named ‘cell palace ‘and ‘Global mobiles’. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant and the opposite party have filed affidavits in lieu of evidences. The documents of the complainant is marked as Ext.A1 to A3 documents. Ext.A1 document is the copy of the reply made by the opposite party under Right to Information Act, 2005. Ext. A2 document is the copy of news paper report revealing vigilance, department inspection conducted in the office of the opposite party. Ext. A3 document is the copy of application submitted by the complainant before the opposite party under Right to Information Act, 2005. The opposite party produced entire proceedings related to this case. But same was not marked as no insistence was made by the opposite party.
6. Heard the complainant in detail perused documents and affidavits of complainant and opposite party. The commission considered the following points
i) Whether the act of the opposite party is amounted to deficiency in service?
ii) Relief and cost?
7. Point No. (i) & (ii)
The Commission is considering the above points together as those are interconnected each other. It is averred by the complainant that he had filed an execution application numbered as E.A 147/2018 before this Commission in which Global Mobiles, Kohinoor buildings, Chembra Road in Gulf bazar of Tirur and another consumer case No. 227/2018 was filed against Cell palace, Kohinoor buildings, Tirur both cases are arisen in connection with defects of mobile phones purchased from the above named shops. But process of the Commission could not effectively served due to change in the name and address of the shops by their respective owners. It is alleged by the complainant that both owners had removed name boards of their respective shops. So in order to execute processes against the mobile shop owners the complainant has submitted an application before the local body authority of Tirur Municipality, who is the opposite party in this case. According to the complainant, being the authority for issuance of licenses to the shop owners for conducting mobile phone businesses the opposite party should have retained the license details of the owners of global mobiles and Cell palace. But the opposite parties did not provide license details including address for the owners of cell palace and Global mobiles. It is replied by the opposite party that no such licenses were issued to in the name and style of cell palace and global mobiles. The complainant has produced Ext. A1 and A 2 documents to prove those aspects. The opposite party did not oppose Ext A1 and A3 documents. It is argued by the complainant that the opposite party has failed to keep details of license issued to cell palace and Global mobiles and thereby committed deficiency in service. If the opposite party had kept details of license the complainant could have succeed in the legal battle against cell palace and global mobiles. Now the complainant became helpless. So the complainant alleged deficiency of service against the opposite parties. It is further argued by the complainant that the opposite parties are not functioning properly and many complaints are arisen against the opposite party and vigilance department of the government of Kerala is conducting investigation against the opposite party. The complainant has produced Ext. A2 document to prove that aspect.
8. On the contrary it is argued by the opposite party that the opposite parties are used to affix numbers to the shop rooms in a visible manner and everybody could easily seen it. Any renovation work was done in a particular shop room thereby be possibility for removing the affixed number or change of its position. It is also argued that it is admitted by the opposite party that they had inspected shop rooms pointed out the complainant and found that those shops were properly and visibly exhibited their shop room numbers. It is argued that the opposite party did not issue license to the shop room in the name and style of ‘cell palace’ and ‘global mobiles ‘. So the opposite party contended for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party did not maintain details of license issued to ‘cell balance ‘and ‘global mobiles’ in the office of opposite party causing inconvenience and damage to the complainant. Non availability of the licensees related the complainant to succeed two cases pending before this Commission resulting financial loss. But this commission find that the case of the complainant goes beyond the limit and scope of consumer protection Act. The allegation of the complainant itself reveal that the investigation is going on against the opposite party by the vigilance department of government of Kerala. The Commission also consider that the complainant can approach any other suitable and competent authority to take up the matter.
10. The Commission find that the successes of cases against cell palace and Global mobiles depending on many other facts. The prayer of the complainant is purely based on suppositions. There is no merit in this complaint and hence it is dismissed.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2024.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3
Ext.A1: Copy of the reply made by the opposite party under Right to Information
Act, 2005.
Ext.A2: Copy of news paper report revealing vigilance, department inspection
conducted in the office of the opposite party.
Ext A3: Copy of application submitted by the complainant before the opposite party under Right to Information Act, 2005.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan . K, President
PreethiSivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
