COMPLAINT FILED: 27.08.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 22.07.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 22nd JULY 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2073/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. R.Padmanabhan,<br /> S/o Late K.V.Ramanujam,<br /> Aged about 63 years,<br /> Residing at No. 29/30,<br /> 1st Main, 24th Cross,<br /> Maruthi nagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 064.<br /> <br /> In person<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Divisional Manager, <br /> Airtel Tele Communication,<br /> BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, <br /> Branch Office, <br /> Yelahanka Old Town,<br /> Yelahanka,<br /> Bangalore-560 064.<br /> <br /> Ex-parte<br /> <br /> 2. The Managing Director,<br /> For Karnataka at Bangalore,<br /> BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,<br /> Bannerghatta road,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate : B J Mahesh<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The Authorised Service <br /> Agent, <br /> M/s. Compac Tele Services,<br /> No.8, 5th Cross, <br /> H.Siddaiah Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 027.<br /> <br /> Ex-parte<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.P) to provide a new telephone Instrument and to pay damages of Rs.20,000/- and costs on the allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> On 27.01.2007 complainant purchased a fixed wireless Telephone Telular model phone Cell S x 6 P GSM bearing No.9900359863 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.3000/-. The copy of the receipt dt: 27.01.2007 issued by OP-1 is produced. In the month of August 2009 the said phone started malfunctioning. Complainant approached OP-1 for checking of the instrument. OP-1directed complainant to approach their branch office at Sahakara nagar, on approach they replied that they will not take up any service work and directed the complainant to contact their Airtel office at R.T.Nagar, Bangalore. On approach they advised the complainant to approach Nandidurga branch office on 20.08.2009 and requested to repair the telephone. One Mr. Siraj, technical officer, tried to repair by removing the screws and attachments, Sim card. After reassembled all parts he checked the instrument but it did not work. He advised the complainant to approach heard office of OP at Bannergatta Road, Bangalore. In turn they advised the complainant to approach M/s. Compac Tele Systems at H. Siddaiah road, Bangalore. Complainant contacted M/s. Compac Tele Systems. The incharge officer checked the instrument and said that the instrument is tampered and screws are removed by the previous repairer. Hence it cannot be repaired and refused to accept the instrument for repair even though complainant is ready to bear the expenses. OP who has provided the instrument and except OP nobody can repair and provide maintenance. OP has to provide maintenance for life term. OP is avoiding to provide service inspite of repeated requests and demands. So complainant was put to harassment for no fault of him. Hence deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstance he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary relief’s. <br /> <br /> 3. OP-1 inspite of service of notice failed to appear, hence placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 4. On appearance OP-2 filed version mainly contending that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreame Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7687/04 in the matter “General Manager, Telecom V/s. M. karishnan and another and the remedy is available to the complainant U/s. 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act; complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; OP admits that complainant is a subscriber of fixed wireless phone (FWP) from OP; complainant used the instrument for more than two years; complainant approached their branch office at Nandidurga road, Bangalore for repair; complainant not produced any reference for having approached other branches of OP; problem in the instrument due to improper usage and consequent damage to the instrument on the part of the complainant; Hence OP advised the complainant to approach M/s. Compac Tele System which is the OP’s authorized service agent of fixed wireless phones; OP denied that Mr. Siraj removed all the screws and Sim card of the instrument; OP would examine the instrument without indulging any repair work and refer the subscriber to its service agent; It is learnt that there was a blockage of Sim Card owing to tampering of the instrument. Complainant was advised to get the new Sim card; After words complainant did not approach the OP; Among other grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced the receipt dt. 27.01.2007 and on behalf of OP its legal officer Mr.prashanth filed affidavit evidence and produced some judgements. Complainant and OP submitted written arguments.<br /> <br /> 6. When the matter is posted for to hear oral arguments on merits at that time complainant got impleaded OP-3 M/s. Compac Tele Services, who is an authorized service agent of OP-1 and 2. Inspite of service of notice OP-3 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP-3 is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 7. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OPs?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. We have gone through pleadings of the parties both affidavit and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on the above points are:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 9. At the out set it is not in dispute that on 27.01.2007 complainant purchased a fixed wireless Telephone Telular Model phone Cell S x 6 P GSM bearing No. 9900359863 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.3,000/-. To substantiate this fact complainant has produced the receipt dt.27.01.2007 issued by OP-1. It is also not in dispute that complainant approached OP-1 in the month of August 2009 for repair of the said instrument when it failed to function properly. OP-1 directed the complainant to approach their branch officer at Sahakara Nagar and R.T. Nagar and Nandi Durga, Bangalore. One Mr. Siraj technical officer at Nandi Durg branch tried to repair by removing the screws, Sim card and attachments and after reassembled it the instrument did not work. Hence he advised the complainant to approach the head office at Bannergatta road, Bangalore i.e. OP-2. In turn OP-2 advised the complainant to contact M/s. Compac Tele Systems who are their authorized service agents for repairs. These facts are not in dispute. <br /> <br /> 10. It is contended by the complainant that M/s. Compac Tele Systems, refused to repair stating instrument is tampered and parts are removed. Though the complainant was ready to bear the expenses, OP-3 refused to repair the instrument. If the instrument is not repaired by OP-3 it will be a dead investment for the complainant and the instrument is of no use.<br /> <br /> 11. It is contended by the OP that there was blockage of Sim card owing to tampering of the instrument. Complainant was advised to get new Sim card but complainant did not turn up. OP has not filed affidavit of his service agent in support of this contention. Hence same cannot be accepted. It is argued on behalf of the OP that the warranty period is over, but there is no documents to that effect is produced.<br /> <br /> 12. It is contended for the OP that the complaint is not maintainable before this forum in view of the Judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7687/04 dt. 01.09.2009 in the matter between General Manager, Telecom V/s. M. Krishnan and another reported in AIR SCW 5631. This contention of the OP cannot be accepted because under Telegraph Act dispute between the Telegraph authority and the Consumer can be referred to arbitration. In the present complaint OP is not Telegraph authority but a licencee under the authority.<br /> <br /> 13. OP-1 and 2 admits OP-3 as their authorized service agent and hence advised the complainant to approach OP-3 but OP-3 refused to accept the instrument for repair. Inspite of service of notice by the Forum OP-3 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. From the absence of the OP-1 and OP-3 we can draw the inference that OP-1 and OP-3 admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. The fixed wireless Telephone instrument purchased by the complainant is a specialized product. Except its authorized/Service agent no one else can give service. Complainant approached most of the branches of OP in Bangalore. Service has been denied even at the cost of the complainant. This act of the OP amount to deficiency in service on their part. So complainant is entitled for some relief. We are of the considered view that complainant is entitle for refund of amount paid to OP and litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP 1 to 2 are directed to refund Rs.3,000/- and take back the fixed wireless Telephone instrument from the complainant and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of July 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> gm <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />