The case of the complainant is as follows:
The opposite parties had installed coin Box to the complainant's backery on 3.6.2006. The complainant had deposited Rs.5600/- as material cost and Deposit including other expenses to the Ist opposite party. The complainant had purchased zim card worth Rs.1150/-. The 2nd opposite party had submitted that the complainant would get Rs.1555/-. Thus on 31.7.06 the complainant had incerted zim card worth Rs.1150/- out of which he could get only Rs.956/-. Hence the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party told that once again re-charge for -2- Rs.1150/- then it will be al-right. The card will also lapse when the call of Rs.1150/-. Then the complainant contacted the Ist opposite party but there was no response from them. Even after repeated demands made by the complainant the opposite parties had not rectified the defects. There was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complainant file this complaint for getting compensation and costs with interest. Hence this complaint. The notice was served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version. The Ist opposite parties version contending as follows: The complainant is not a consumer and the dispute was not a consumer dispute. The Ist opposite party do not sell or distribute or supply any coin Box to the customers as alleged. The Ist opposite party only provides mobile connection with a zim card. This was supplied after collecting security deposit and not sold. The coin Box required for the customer usage is supplied, configured and installed by the distributor on which the Ist opposite party has no information and control. The coin box was installed in the backery owned by the complainant. The avernment that the complainant has paid Rs.2600/- towards the material cost the Ist opposite party was not true. The only material cost involved in the functioning of a PCO is the cost of the purticular coin box. The only re-charge coupon sold by the Ist opposite party was for an amount of Rs.1,122/-. If a Coin Box was re-charged with Rs.1,122/- re-charge coupon, the customer will get a talk time amount of Rs.1,555/-. The complainant has re-charged his Coin Box on 31.7.06 and 26.8.06 respectively with Rs.1,122/- coupon. On both these occasions, the Ist opposite party has given full talk time of Rs.1,549.64/-. Assuming without conceding that the complainant has received amount less that what the complainant should receive, the same could be due to the settings made in the Coin Box instrument or due to the mismanagement of the Coin Box, for -3- which the Ist opposite party was no way liable. Since the Coin Box instrument was not being supplied or maintained by the Ist opposite party. The Ist opposite party was ready to refund the deposit amount. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ist opposite party. The version of the 2nd opposite party contending as follows: The transaction was commercial one. The 2nd opposite party was a distributor of the Ist opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has not supplied Coin Box to the complainant. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. The terminal and charger antenna are supplied by the 2nd opposite party worth Rs.8000/- are still in possession of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed Proof Affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 to A7. The Ist and 2nd opposite parties filed Proof Affidavit and documents which marked as exhibits B1.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version documents and evidences. The case of the complainant is that the Coin Box became defective and even after the repeated demands made by him the opposite parties has not rectified the defects. According to the complainant the re-charge coupon was not completely used as offered by the opposite parties. The opposite parties has made a contention that Coin Box was purchased by the opposite parties the complainant had used the re-charge coupon and get the validity and talk time as offered by the opposite parties. The specific allegation of the complainant is that the complainant has not get the actual talk value from the re-charge coupon as offered by the opposite parties. But there was no evidence to show that the actual loss of the complainant. There was -4- no evidence adduced by the complainant that the illeged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover the purchase of the coin box was not proved by the complaint. The complainant has not produced the receipt of the deposit as alleged in the complaint. The manufacturer of the Coin Box is not a party to the proceedings. The allegation in the complaint was not proved by the complainant. So we have no reason to believe the case of the complaint. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be dismissed. In the result the complaint is dismissed. Both parties will suffer their respective costs.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
