VANUKURI USHA KIRAN REDDY Vs. PIONEER TELESERVICES, FRANCHISEE OF TATA TELE SERVICES LIMITED, GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.432/2007 on the file of District Forum, Guntur, the complainant preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Tata Indicom mobile set with MDN 9290020974 as her cell/mobile number and took mobile connection for an amount of Rs.2300/- on 21.5.2006. The complainant was made to believe that he can have unlimited free talk time to any other Tata subscriber within the limits of Andhra Pradesh. The complainant submits that to her surprise she was charged for call to local Tata numbers and the opposite party did not even supply the call details to the complainant when she personally contacted the office. The complainant got issued a notice on 21.3.2007 calling upon them to attend to the grievance. The complainant submits that the opposite party did not rectify the defect and restore the unlimited free talk time to local TATA Indicom from her MDN 9290020974 nor paid back her charges that were unauthorisedly extracted from her. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to restore unlimited free talk time to tele connection MDN.9290020974 of the complainant and to pay the entire amount of call charges unauthorisedly extracted from the complainant with full details, to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs.

(3.) Opposite party filed written version stating that the complainant is not a consumer since the phone connection was taken in the name of one S.Venkateswara Reddy, Hyderabad but not in the complainants name and the Tata Indicom phone set was purchased on 21.5.2006 at Hyderabad whereas the complainant herein resides in Guntur. Opposite party submits that at the time of purchase the terms and conditions entered into between the complainant and the dealer are binding on both the parties and this opposite party is neither a party to the transaction nor is there any privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party. Opposite party further contend that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.