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 21st day of August, 2007
C.C. No.76/2007
Rakop Eswaraiah, Advocate, S/o Late Nagaraju,
H.No.64/103, Fort, Kurnool District. … COMPLAINANT
Verses
The Divisional Manager, Reliance Info-Comm Services,
S.V.Complex, R.S.Road, Kurnool. …OPPSITE PARTIES
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.Rakop Eswaraiah, Advocate, kurnool for complainant, and opposite party called absent and set exparte upon the perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.76/07
1. This case of the Complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act seeking direction on the Opposite Party for return of the Mobile Hand set of
Reliance Company, Rs.2,000/- which he paid for converting the post paid connection to prepaid connection , Rs.3,000/- which he paid towards repairing charges, Rs.8,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs of the case alleging himself as subscriber to Reliance mobile India and paid Rs.2,000/- on 4.3.2004 for converting to pre paid service and he was regular to recharging the sim card without any default and the said mobile cell phone stopped its functioning and so it was handed over to the opposite party for repair on 22.12.2005 paying Rs.3,000/- towards repair and the Opposite Party did not return the cell phone attending its repair inspite of several approaches and the acts of Opposite Party are amounting not only to deficiency service but also ensuring mental agony.
2. In spite of service of notice of this Forum as to this case of the Complainant, the Opposite Party did not turn up to the case proceedings either directly or through any counsel and there by remained exparte to the case proceedings without contesting the case . Hence the case is proceeded for adjudication on the merits.
3. The Complainant alleges as his mobile cell phone ceased to function properly it was hand over to the Opposite Party on 22.12.2005 along with an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards his repair. In support of the said contention the Ex.A1 was relied. It envisages there in the name of the customer as Eswaraiah (Complainant) and the mobile Number as 323135 alleging the failure of ram and the date of issual of Ex.A1 as 22.12.2005 . Hence from Ex.A1 what follows is that a cell phone of the Complainant bearing mobile No.323135 was delivered on 22.12.2005. on the complaint of ram failure. But it doesn't envisage either as to payment of Rs.3,000/- towards repair charges or the said handing over of the cell phone to Opposite Party described in the complaint as the rubber stamp address on Ex.A1 is different to that of the Opposite Party mentioned in complaint and the address found inEx.A1 to whom the cell phone said have been handed over for repair is not a party to this complaint. Therefore in the above circumstance the complainant could have any relief against the Opposite Party described in this compliant either for return of the cell phone given for repair or for return of Rs.3,000/- said to have been given for attending its repair .
4. The Complainant alleges that he has paid on 4.8.2004, Rs.2,000/- to the opposite party while switching over to pre paid connection to his mobile. In support of said contention the Complainant takes reliance on the Ex.A2 . The Ex.A2 is a receipt for Rs.2,000/- in cash from the Complainant on 4.8.2004 for Reliance India Mobile No.8518 323135. It was issued by the Opposite Party from the address note there in. Even though it doesn't envisages that the said amount was received for converting to pre paid connection as alleged by the Complainant but the said allegation of the Complainant having been not discredited, from the Ex.A2 what follows is that an amount of Rs.2,000/- was received by the Opposite Party from the complainant.
5. In the absence of any material that the said amount covered under Ex.A2 is not refundable, the Complainant is remaining entitled for refund of said amount of Rs.2,000/- from the Opposite Party especially when the Complainant deprived of the service of Opposite Party on account of failure of functioning of the mobile cell phone of the Complainant.
6. The Complainant's claim from Opposite Party an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this case, For want of any pre litigation legal notice of the Complainant to the Opposite Party as to his grievances it cannot be believed any indifferent conduct of the Opposite Party has driven the Complainant to the forum for the redressal of his grievances especially when the Complainant could not make out any justifiable cause of action of deficiency of service of the Opposite Party towards the repair of his mobile cell phone and payment of Rs.3,000/- for said repairs. Hence the Complainant is not entitled either to the alleged claim of Rs.8,000/- toward mental agony and claimed cost of Rs.2,000/-.
7. Hence the circumstances discussed above the complaint is allowed to the extent of directing the Opposite Party for return of Rs.2,000/-, envisaged in Ex.A2, to the Complainant within a month of receipt of this order. In default the Opposite Party shall pay the said Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant with an interest 9 % per annum from the date of said default till satisfactory realization of the award amount.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by her open bench on this the 21st day of August, 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. Receipt dated 22.12.2005.
Ex.A2. Receipt dated 4.8.2004 for Rs.2,000/-.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties : Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri. Rakop Eswaraiah, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
