Complaint is filed on 4-3-2009
Compliant disposed on 19-7-2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.,LL.M.,PGDCA (CONSUMER AWARENESS), MEMBER
SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN RAO, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 44 OF 2009
Between:
Mohd. Ismail, S/o. Ramjanali, age about 32 years, Occ: Self Employed, R/o. Santhoshnagar, 8 Incline Colony, Ramagundam proper and mandal, Karimnagar district.
…Complainant
AND
- Airtel Raibow Net Works, NTPC, Jyothinagar, Ramagundam, Karimnagar district.
- Bharathi Airtel Limited, Circle Office, Splendid Towers, Opp: Begumpet Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
.... Opposite parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 7-7-2011, in the presence of complainant and Sri G. Ramulu and B. Raghunandan Rao and A. Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocates for the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.1 remained exparte, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following.
::ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties to return the Mobile SIM Card and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony along with costs to the complainant.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant obtained Prepaid Mobile Lifetime connection from opposite party no.1 with No.9849716040 and using it since four years. The complainant lost his said SIM Card. Immediately the he approached opposite party no.1 for arranging SIM Card by paying Rs.100/- vide receipt no.2438 Dt: 13.9.2008. Then the complainant came to know that the said mobile connection was registered on the name of “Darshnalu” with his address even after he submitted his address proof at the time of obtaining connection. The complainant reported the same to opposite party no.1 for changing of name. Subsequently the complainant was provided with new SIM Card. On enquiry with Customer Care, the complainant noticed that the name was changed for his mobile connection assured by opposite party no.1. When the complainant insisted the opposite party no.1 to change the name as assured, the opposite party no.1 replied adamantly that the name will not be changed and forcibly taken back the SIM Card by threatening the complainant.
3. Therefore, the complainant approached the Consumer Organization for redressal. In turn the Consumer Organization issued Notice to opposite parties demanding for return of the SIM Card. But there is no response from opposite parties, hence filed this complaint.
4. Opposite party no.1 set exparte.
5. Opposite party no.1 filed Counter Affidavit denying the averments made in the complaint and submitted that on 13.9.2008 complainant contacted the opposite parties add made a complaint that he had lost his SIM Card and requested for the replacement. Then the staff of opposite parties verified the same in the system, as the systems were down at that particular point of time, believing him to be the actual customer and his complaint is genuine, issued a SIM Card. But later on after verifying in system it was found that the said mobile number was in the name “Darshanalu” and requested the complainant to return the same. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.
6. The opposite party no.2 further submitted that the relief which the complainant sought from the Forum is contrary to law and the same number cannot be allotted to the complainant which is already issued in the name of Mr.Darshanalu. Hence, this complaint is not maintainable under law and is liable to be dismissed.
7. The complainant filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the notice issued by Consumer Council addressed to opposite parties. Ex.A2 is the photo copy of receipt for Rs.100/- Dt: 13.9.2008. Ex.A3 & A4 are the DTDC courier receipts Dt: 20.9.2008 and 19.9.2008 respectively.
8. The opposite party no.2 filed Evidence Affidavit of its’ Deputy General Manager reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit and the document filed by them are marked as Ex.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is the photo copy of Subscriber Enrollment form. Ex.B2 is the photo copy of reply notice Dt: 22.10.2008. Ex.B3 is the postal receipt Dt: 27.10.2008.
9. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
10. The complainant filed the complaint against Airtel Company on the ground of return of SIM Card which he lost. The complainant approached the opposite parties for issue of SIM Card. Then he came to know that his SIM Card was in the name “Darshanalu” though he has submitted required address proof at the time of obtaining SIM Card. Subsequently, they issued SIM Card but the name was not changed. The complainant approached the opposite party for change of name as assured, the opposite party no.1 replied adamantly that the name will not be changed and forcibly taken back the SIM Card by threatening the complainant. As such the complainant filed this complaint.
11. The counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 denying all the averments of the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the above said allegations. The opposite party no.2 submitted that the complainant approached opposite parties to issue SIM Card which he lost. Believing him to be the actual customer and his complaint is genuine, issued a SIM Card. But later on after verifying in system it was found that the said mobile number was in the name “Darshanalu” and requested the complainant to return the same. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
12. Before deciding the case on merits it is pertinent to mention that the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora in the matters relating to Telegraph Act is barred through the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC) in a case of General Manager, Telecom Services Vs M.Krishnan & Anr., held that remedy under C.P.Act, 1986 of Telegraphic Services in view of Sec 7 B of Telegraph Act 1885 is barred.
14. Following the same judgment our Hon’ble State Commission (A.P.) in F.A.No.830/2008 in CC No.178/2004 held that “Though point of jurisdiction was not raised by the appellant before the District Forum the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan reported in AIR 2010 SC 90 after considering the remedy provided U/s.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act opined that the District Forum has no jurisdiction. Since the question of jurisdiction has been raised by the appellant and by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court being the law of the land we must hold this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We have to take the cognizance of the said decision”.
15. In another decision 2011 (1) CPR 414, the Hon’ble State Commission of Union Territory, Chandigarh in a case Idea Cellular Ltd, through Manoj Madan, Manager (Legal) Vs Bharat Rai Varma held that, “the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & Anr., in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that remedy under CPA, 1986 for telecom services in view of Sec 7 B of Telegraph Act, 1885 is barred. It will not be out of place to mention here that the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Prakash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Ltd while placing reliance on the General Manager’s case dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant holding that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain disputes in view of 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 1.10.2010 filed by the complainant against the orders of Hon’ble National Commission. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters and the learned District Forum has erred in allowing the complaint whereas Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute related to the telecom services”.
16. In the present case also the dispute is with regard to the Telecom Services. Relying on the above decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission and State Commission, it is held that this Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes in respect of Telecom Services in view of Sec 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act. In the decision the Hon’ble State Commission of Union Territory, Chandigarh has also made it clear to the parties that they are at liberty to approach proper Forum for redressal for their grievances available to them under Law. The present case also stands on the same footing. Therefore, it is held that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances available to him under Law.
17. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Stenographer (DUR) and transcribed by her, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 19th day of July, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the notice issued by Consumer Council addressed to opposite parties. Ex.A2 is the photo copy of receipt for Rs.100/- Dt: 13.9.2008.
Ex.A3 & A4 are the DTDC courier receipts Dt: 20.9.2008 and 19.9.2008
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 is the photo copy of Subscriber Enrollment form.
Ex.B2 is the photo copy of reply notice Dt: 22.10.2008.
Ex.B3 is the postal receipt Dt: 27.10.2008.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
