BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 24th day of July, 2007
C.C. No.168/2006
Ch. Venkata Ramanaiah,
S/o. Ch. Rama Subbaiah,
R/o. Sri Ramana Super Bazar,
D.No. 2 Lalitha Kala Samithi,
C. Camp, Kurnool, Kallur Manadal,
Kurnool District. … COMPLAINANT …
Verses
The Proprietor,
Sandya Tele Services,
H.No. 40/353-B,
Gandhi Nagar,
Kurnool.
Kurnool Mandal and Kurnool District.
… OPPOSITE PARTY
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.K. Uma Hanumantha Rao, Advocate, kurnool for complainant, Sri.M/s.M.D.Y. Rama Moorty, and M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocates, Kurnool for Opposite Party and after persuing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Member)
CC.No.168/2006
- This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed Under Section 12 of C.P.Act, seeking a direction on opposite party to replace the Metasun Pay Phone “M.S” 100 coin box No. 53014, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.1500/- as cost of Sim Card, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
- The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that he purchased a Metasun pay phone M.S.100 coin box No.53014 for Rs.2000/- from opposite party and opposite party issued a warranty Card for a period of one year i.e., from 3.12.2005 to 3.12.2006 . Thereafter the complainant installed the said phone in front of his house for business purpose, after two months from the date of purchase the said coin box started giving troubles and on informing the same to the opposite party, the opposite party deputed his men to get it repair twice but the same problem was raising again and again and caused loss to his business and caused mental agony. Inspite of several requests the opposite party failed to repair the said phone nor replaced the said phone as per warranty and the said amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, the complainant resorted to the forum for reliefs.
- In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents (1) operation manual with warranty registration card of Sl.No.53014 , (2) Office copy of legal notice dated 24.11.2006, (3) courier receipt No. 44023 dated 24.11.2006 (4) courier acknowledgement dated 24.11.2006 , (5) acknowledgement issued by opposite party for receipt of coin box, (6) Two Sim Cards, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A6 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite party and replied to the interrogatories of opposite party.
- In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and filed written version
- The written version of opposite party denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts. It further submits that the opposite party is not the Managing Director of Sandhaya Tele Services and opposite party never sold any such instrument to the complainant and every sale of any such instrument, the opposite party would definitely give under a cash bill and guarantee card issued would inevitably contain seal and signature of the Proprietor of the opposite party . It also further alleges that it did not depute his men for repairs and the problems arising in the Metasun coin box is not known to him, and the complainant never purchased the said coin box from the opposite party nor requested to replace the said coin box. As such there is no question of deficiency of service on part of opposite party as no service was rendered by him. The claim of the complainant in his complaint is excessive , arbitratory and baseless and there is absolutely no ground for granting any relief in the above case, as the complainant and did not purchase the said Metasun coin box from the opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
- In support of his case the opposite party relied on the following documents , viz.,(1) attested xerox copy of bill No.496 dated 12.6.2006 for Rs.2,000/- and (2) attested xerox copy of warranty registration card issued to Sreedevi, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party and third party Sreedevi , and the above documents are marked as the Ex.B1 and B2 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party and the third party replied to the interrogatories of complainant and the opposite party caused interrogatories to complainant.
- Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service?..
- It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Metasun Coin Box No.53014 from opposite party on 3.12.2005 by paying Rs.2,000/- vide Ex.A1 and the said phone after two months of purchase started giving troubles. On intimating the opposite party,the opposite party did neither repaired the Coin Box nor replaced the defective Coin Box. The complainant alleges that the said coin box is having one year warranty vide Ex.A1 and the opposite party failed to attend its repairs. But on the other side the opposite party alleges that the Coin Box of the complainant was not purchased from his shop and if any instrument is purchased, it will be definitely under a cash bill and under Ex.A1.
- The complainant alleges that he purchased the said Coin Box from opposite party vide Ex.A1 , the Ex.A1 is the receipt of Reliance infocomm services, dated 29.11.2005 and it no where envisages the purchase of Coin Box by the complainant from opposite party. The warranty Registration Card envisages the date of purchase as 3.12.2005 by Ramana Super market and the dealers name as Sandhaya Tele Services, but it does not bears the signatures of the proprietor of Sandhaya Tele Services nor bears the seal or stamp of opposite party. Hence, it can be held that the complainant purchased the said Coin Box from the opposite party.
- The Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 24.11.2006 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party, complaining about the non-functioning of coin box and requests to replace it within 3 days,otherwise the complainant will be constrained to take legal action. The Ex. A3 and A4 are the courier receipts and acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex. A2 by opposite party. The Ex A.5 in the acknowledgement dated nil issued by opposite party as to the receipt of Coin Box, which was said to be out of order due to coin struck and display. The Ex A.6 are two sim cards worth Rs.1,500/- each. The Complainant cannot rely on Ex.A.5 and A.6 as there is no mention or plea of Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 in the complaint avernments. Hence no credence can be given to Ex.A.5 and A.6.
- While such is so with the complainant the opposite party alleges that he never sold the said coin box to complainant and if any such coin box is sold it would be definitely under a cash bill like Ex.B.1. The Ex.B1 is the attested xerox of bill No.496 ,dated 12.6.2006. issued by opposite party to one Sreedevi of Devi medicals and the cash bill bears the signature of proprietor of opposite party. The Ex.B2 is the attested xerox copy of warranty card issued to Sreedevi by opposite party , it bears the signature of the proprietor of opposite party and also the seal of opposite party. The complainant produced on record the warranty card which is not signed by the opposite party nor has the seal of opposite party. Hence, it cannot be concluded that the complainant purchased the said coin box from the opposite party only.
- The Ex.B1 and B.2 are supported by the third party affidavit of Sreedevi, the said III party submits that she purchased Metasun MS 1000 Coin Box from Sandhya Tele Services on.12.6.2006 for Rs.2,000/- and the said Tele services issued a bill No.496 with warranty card and she gave xerox copies of them to opposite party.
- Hence , from the above it is clear that opposite party would issue a cash bill to the customers on purchase of Metasun Coin Box along with sealed warranty card. In this case the complainant did not produce any piece of document as to the purchase of coin box by him from the opposite party. Therefore it cannot be said that the said coin box was purchased by the complainant from opposite party, when the purchased itself is not proved by the complainant , no liability can be fastened on the opposite party. Hence, when no liability is there, then there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. The Complainant in his avernments alleges that he purchased the said Metasun Coin Box for business purpose. As per Sec.2(1)(d)of C.P.Act,1986 a person who avails services or buys goods for commercial services is not a ‘Consumer’. Hence the Complainant is not a Consumer and the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the Complaint..
- In the result, this case is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open bench this the 24th day of July, 2007.
Sd/- Sd/
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Operation Manual with warranty repetition card of Sl No.53014
As to date of purchase 3.12.2005 along with receipt.
Ex. A2. Office copy of legal notice, dated 24.11.2006 .
Ex. A3. Courier receipt No.44023, dated 24.11.006.
Ex. A4. Courier acknowledgement No. 44023, dated 24.11.2006.
Ex. A5. Acknowledgement issued by opposite party for receipt of the
Coin box.
Ex. A6. Display two (2) sim cards.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested xerox copy of bill No.496 , dated 12.6.2006.
For Rs.2,000/-
Ex.B2 Attested xerox copy of warranty Registration card
Issued to Sreedevi.
Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.K. Uma Hanumantha Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. Sri M.D.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate , Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
