STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

FA  79 of 2015

Against

                 CC No. 138 of 2014, District Forum, Ranga Reddy

Between :    

C. Radha Krishna,

S/o Sri C.a. V. V. Seshu,

Occ : Advocate, R/o 1-1-416/23,

RBI colony, Mohan nagar, Kothapet,

Hyderabad – 500 035,

Ranga Reddy District                                    ..Appellant/complainant

And

1. Bharti Airtel Ltd

Rep. by its Manager, 6-3-1192/1, 8^th floor

Block III, White House, Green lands Road,

Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016.

2. Bharti Airtel Store,

Rep. by its Store Manager, Sai Bhavani

Tele services, 2-4-694, Road No. 4, New Nagole

Hyderabad – 500 035, Ranga Reddy District …Respondents/OPs

Counsel for the Appellant                            :  Sri B. Veeraswamy Raju

Counsel for the Respondents                       :  M/s. Gopi Rajesh and Associates

Coram                :

                           Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal ….. President

                                                            and

                          Hon’ble Sri K. Ramesh                  …      Member

                          Tuesday, the Twenty EITHTH Day  of August

                                  Two Thousand Eighteen

ORAL ORDER

                                                            ***

01.     This is an appeal filed by the complainant U/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to enhance the amounts awarded in the impugned order  dated 22.04.2015 passed  in CC No. 138 of 2014  on the file of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy.

02. The case of the complainant in brief is that he paid an amount of Rs.3,712/- on 28.01.2014 towards the plan offered by the opposite parties for a  period of six months from the date of activation under 3G 3712 Half yearly Advance Rental Data Card plan and no amount is payable when the advance rent of Rs.3,712/- is paid. He paid the service Tax of Rs.1,000/- and event then the opposite  parties disconnected the net connection for several times and caused mental agony and hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to restore the services along with disconnected period and to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony

03.The Opposite parties resisted the complaint contending that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the light of the special remedy provided U/s. 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act.

04.     The District Forum on the basis of the material available on record and Ex.A1 to A11,  directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation  with costs of Rs.1,000/- within one month.

05.     Dis-satisfied with the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal for enhancement of compensation.

06.No representation for the appellant/complainant despite many adjournments. Counsel for the respondents /opposite parties relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (8) SCC 481 Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 SC in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another   has upheld that “ the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction on disputes relating to telephone services and telephone bills in the light of special remedy provided under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 red with Telegraph Rules”. The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment seems  to be  inapplicable to the facts of the present case, more particularly, in view of the clarification issued by the Department of Telecommunication which was a “ Telegraph Authority ” under the Indian Telegraph Act, as a service provider prior to the hiring  off of  telecom services into a separate company viz., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).  However, as the powers of a “Telegraph Authority” are now not vested in the private telecom service providers, as is the case here, and also in the BSNL, Section 7B of the said Act will have no application and, therefore, the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are competent to entertain the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers. In the light of the said clarification, the complainant is maintainable.

07.     Perusal of the material available on record does not go to indicate that the appellant/complainant is entitled to seek more compensation than the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the District Forum. Hence the appeal does not find merit consideration and deserves to be dismissed.

08. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed while confirming the order dated 22.04.2015 passed  in CC.No.138 of 2014 on the file of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                                PRESIDENT           MEMBER

    Dated : 28.08.2018.