SKY CELL COMMUNICATION LTD Vs. M CHINNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the opposite party in O. P.781/1997 on the file of District Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein.

(2.) The case of the complainant was as follows : He was a practicing Advocate. He bought a handset for Rs.14,999 on 17.2.1997 from the opposite party and became subscriber with mobile No.53272. He was not given demonstration regarding the operation of the instrument. The instrument was not working properly. It was showing low battery condition and even though he did not make any calls after May 97, the opposite party continued to send monthly bills regularly to the complainant. His grievances were not rectified. He caused a lawyer's notice to be issued on 12.8.1997 for which, there was no response. Under such circumstances, the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 for mental agony and untold hardship suffered at the hands of the opposite party, and adverse effect on the complainant's profession from 27.2.1997 besides the cost or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.14,999 with interest @ 24 p. a. from the date of purchase till realization.

(3.) The opposite party resisted the complaint inter alia contending as follows : The instrument was given along with users manual and demonstration of the instrument was given at the time of delivery of the instrument. Subsequently also the representatives of the opposite party tried to meet the complainant number of times but they could not meet. The few times, they could meet him, he asked them to come on some other date as he was busy. The opposite party was not the manufacturer of the instrument. If the instrument was defective he ought to have brought it to the office of the opposite party or to the Service Centre to the manufacturer indicated in the users' manual, which was not done. Further, the complainant had not pointed to any particular defect in the instrument except making a vague statement. In fact in the complaint he had admitted that he did not know whether the instrument was in good working condition or not. In the subsequent paragraphs he had admitted that he had been using the instruments for two months. His grievance had not been proved. The low battery condition should be due to failure to charge the battery regularly while using the instrument. As long as he was one of the subscribers of the mobile services, he had to pay the monthly bills whether he used the mobile services or not. There was no deficiency in service.