UMESH GROVER Vs. ZIP TELECOM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant obtained atelephone equipment from OP -1 M/s. U.T. Systems Pvt. Ltd., by paying Rs. 14990 on 4.3.2004. According to the complainant, M/s. U.T. Systems Pvt. Ltd., which happens to be he authorized dealer of OP -1 Zip Telecom Ltd., installed the Zip phone and machine unit on 16.3.2004 at the residence of the complainant for running a PCO booth. At the same time it appeared to the complainant that the telephone equipment was not properly functioning. The complainant therefore complained about the same to the UT sytems Pvt. Ltd., which in turn assured the complainant that the defective unit will be replaced very soon. The complainant s grouse is that despite lending assurances many a times, M/s. U.T. Systems Pvt. Ltd., did not keep up their promises and did not change the equipment. On 28.9.2004, OP No. 1 M/s. Zip Telecom Ltd., sent a letter to the complainant informing that the rights, interest and applications of the OP -1 Zip Telecom Ltd., has been transferred and vested in OP -3 TATA Tele Services Ltd. On 19.2.2005 OP -2 M/s. Right Marketing authorized distributor of OP -1 Zip Telecom Ltd., ultimately repaired the Zip telephone equipment for which the complainant had to pay Rs. 300 to OP -2 vide receipt No. 242 dated 19.2.2005. Subsequently the telephone instrument became absolutely non -functional and the complainant served a legal notice on all the three OPs on 4.9.2006 demanding replacement of the equipment failing which they were asked to pay Rs. 14,990 which was the price paid for the telephone equipment. Out of the three OPs only OP No. 2 replied to the legal notice while the other two remained silent and which led the complainant to file a complaint against the OPs before the District Consumer Forum praying that the OPs be directed to replace the defective equipment by installing a new one or return the price of the telephone equipment Rs. 14,990 and also to pay Rs. 20,000 for official loss with interest and Rs. 30,000 towards the compensation and Rs. 11,000 towards cost of litigation.

(2.) THE OPs opposed the claim and filed the written statement raising various pleas. OP Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte and only OP No. 3 contested. During the pendency of the complaint, OP No. 2 compromised with the complainant for an amount of Rs. 10,000 and gave a cheque for Rs. 2,500 as part payment towards the compromise amount which according to the complainant was dishonoured.

(3.) THE District Forum on basis of said compromise held that after the compromise with OP No. 2 no cause of action survived against OP No. 2.