Opp. Railway Divisional Office
Palakkad. - Complainant
(Adv. G. Shaji)
1. Tata Tele Services Ltd
Managed by Tata Logistic India (P) Ltd
XI/426, HMT Road
Kochi – 683 503
( Adv. Vinod.K. Kayanad)
2. The Manager
Opp. Kalyan Tourist Home
G B Road
Palakkad. - Opposite parties
O R D E R By Smt. A.K. Bhanumathi, Member
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:
The Petitioner was running a public telephone booth and xerox copier centre for his livilihood. The complainant further intended to start a smart PCO under Tata Indicom on bonus scheme as offered by the Ist Opposite party. Along with the PTB Operatorship applications, the complainant sent a demand draft for Rs.7,102/- on 04/10/2005 to the Ist Opposite party. Later on 10/10/2005 the Ist Opposite party despatched a Booth Pedestral and link well with battery to the complainant. The complainant installed the above equipments in his telephone booth and operated the PTB till 22/12/2007. When the complainant realized that he is unable to generate reasonable revenue from the service , he decided to exit from the Tata Indicom operatorship and applied for disconnection of the system. Thereby the complainant approached the distributor, the second Opposite party on
- 2 -
24/02/2007 and returned the PCO connection device to the second Opposite party. The complainant intimated his intention to breakup the operatorship and thereby sought termination of the agreement between the Ist Opposite party and complainant, entered under bonus scheme. After termination of the agreement due to any reason at anytime, the first Opposite party is liable to return the refundable deposit of an amount of Rs.6,000/- plus Rs.1,102/- to the complainant. The complainant further states that there is no outstanding in the operators account. The booth pedestral and the link well with battery are in the safe custody of the complainant. Even after the return of PCO connection device to the IInd Opposite party and the demand of the return of refundable deposit from the Ist Opposite party to the complainant, the Ist Opposite party has neither taken back the equipments from the complainant nor returned the deposit amount of Rs.6,000/- plus Rs.1,102/- to the complainant. Complainant sent a lawyer notice to the Ist Opposite party to return the refundable amount and take back the equipments. The Ist Opposite party accepted the notice but no steps was taken . Thereby the Opposite parties committed deficiency in service and their acts amounts to unfair trade practice. The acts of the Opposite parties caused a lot of mental agony and loss to the complainant. Thus the complainant is seeking an order to directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.7,102/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
The complaint was admitted. Opposite parties notice served. Ist Opposite party entered appearance and IInd Opposite party was set ex-parte.
Ist Opposite party filed version with the following contentions. The complainant approached the IInd Opposite party and returned the PCO connection device etc are not intimated to the Ist Opposite party. The complainant sent a letter dated 05.02.2008 asking for the refund of the deposit for which Ist Opposite party sent a reply stating that the deposit will be refunded within one month of return of equipments and accessories subject to return as delivered. Moreover Ist Opposite party's officials approached the complainant several times to retrieve his grievance but he is not ready to settle it amicably. Hence there is no deficiency in service and no unfair trade practice on the part of Ist opposite party. Thus the complaint is liable to the dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibit A1-A5 were marked on their side. Ist Opposite party filed affidavit.
- 3 -
The issues for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the party of the opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the cost and reliefs ?
We perused the relevant records. The contention of the complainant is that after depositing the PCO connection device the Ist Opposite party is liable to return the refundable deposit amount to the complainant. In their reply notice Opposite party states that the deposit will be refunded within one month of return of equipments. The document Exhibit A1 produced by the complainant clearly states that “Upon termination of the Agreement due to any reason, the said properties of TTSL shall be returned to the TTSL by the operator. At the time of termination of this agreement by either party the deposit amount shall be refunded to the operator after deducting any damages to TTSL property and any outstanding against the operators account. According to our view the complainant ought to have returned the devices first and then claim the refundable amount as per the agreement.
From the above discussions we are of the view that as the complainant has not followed the provisions of the Bonus scheme agreement properly. The act of the Opposite parties will not amount to deficiency of service.
In the result complaint dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.