N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH Vs. SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 22.3.2004 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dismissing appeal against the order dated 7.8.2001 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by petitioner/complainant was dismissed.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision, in brief are these. During 1999 a sales executive of respondent/Opposite Party allegedly approached and induced the petitioner to subscribe for a spice connection. He assured that Virajpet would be having spice tower by October, 1999. Sales executive also supplied form and booklet wherein map of Karnataka was printed indicating that tower will be erected at Virajpet. Acting on that assurance, the petitioner filed application dated 13.8.1999 for a connection in addition to paying Rs. 3,100 to the respondent. Sim card was supplied at a cost of Rs. 6,800. It was stated that as the tower was not erected in October, 1999, the petitioner was unable to use the cell phone from Virajpet despite a sum of Rs. 22 being deducted per day from the currency purchased by him from the respondent and/or its dealer. Complaint was filed claiming a total of Rs. 1,27,896 with interest by the petitioner which was contested by filing written version by the respondent. In written version, though the issuance of spice connection in August 1999 was not denied but it was alleged that the mobile phone purchased by the petitioner was used in Mangalore, Bangalore and Virajpet. It was further alleged that huge expenses are incurred in erecting a tower and as it was not viable the tower was not erected at Virajpet. In the brochure, it was only stated that tower was expected. It was denied that it was assured to the petitioner that tower at Virajpet would be constructed by October, 1999 as alleged. It was also alleged that petitioner continues to be the subscriber for more than 2 years and spice service should have been discontinued if there was no utlility.

(3.) It was contended by Mrs. Kiran Suri for petitioner that the brochure issued by respondent is silent that tower at Virajpet was to be erected only if it was viable. Attention was invited to the map of Karnataka as printed in the brochure admittedly issued by the respondent wherein Virajpet along with other places are shown in dark green with the note as: "YOU CAN TALK HERE BY MID' 99"