STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 183 of 2016
Against
CC No. 362 of 2014
District Consumer Forum II, Hyderabad
Between :
- The Nodal Officer ( Legal Section )
Regional office of Airtel,
1-8-437, 438 and 445, Splended Towers
Opp. to Begumpet Police Station
Hyderabad – 500 016.
- The Nodal Officer ( Legal Section )
Bharati Airtel Limited
Regd. office : Bharathi Crescent,
1, Neson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj
Phase II, New Delhi – 110 070 .. Appellants/opposite parties
and
Vijaya Kumar, S/o I. Srirama Sharma,
R/o Flat No. 203, Pasham Sathaiah Apartments.
Plot No. 1-2-57 to 61, Near e-seva Center
Domalaguda, Hyderabad – 500 029 .Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. Gopi Rajesh and
Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : M.S. A.D. Varaprasad
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal ….. President
Tuesday, the Twenty Fifth Day of September
Two Thousand Eighteen
ORAL ORDER
***
01. This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to set aside the impugned order dated 02.06.2016 in CC No. 362 of 2014 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he was provided official Mobile Phone bearing SIM number 9701371716 by the Railway Department and he used the same from April, 2011 to June, 2012 and thereafter he was transferred to Khajipet due to disciplinary charges and hence handed over the SIM No.9701371716 to the department. During the departmental enquiry, call list particulars, which were obtained from the opposite parties/service providers for the period from 3-6-2012 to 4-6-2012, used as a prosecution document On his request, the department informed him that the department not requested for the said list. Therefore he sent legal notice to the opposite parties on 2-4-2014 to provide information who has obtained the said particulars but the opposite parties failed to provide the same. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to furnish information about the person who has obtained the particulars of his SIM No. 9701371716 for two days on 3-6-2012 and 4-6-2012, to pay a Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
4). The opposite parties opposed the above complaint by way of written version contending that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per the judgment reported in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and others reported in 2009 (8) SCC 481 since the dispute in between the subscriber and the Telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only. Normally if any written request made by the higher authority, then only, opposite parties furnish the details of the call list to the said higher authorities. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-9 and the respondents/opposite parties filed Evidence Affidavit and no documents were marked. Heard both sides.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to provide the information with regard to the person who has approached them for the particulars of the mobile number 9701371716 for the period 3-6-2012 to 4-6-2012 viz., for the two days 2. To pay Rs.10,000/-towards compensation for mental agony and 3. To pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this complaint within 30 days.
7). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/opposite parties preferred this appeal.
8) Counsel on both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof together with written arguments of the respondent.
09) The points that arises for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant, who is the employee of the Railways Department, was provided with official Mobile Phone bearing No. 9701371716 by their Department. There is no dispute that the call list particulars of the said Mobile on 3-6-2012 to 4-6-2012 were obtained from the service providers, i.e., the appellants/opposite parties and they are used as prosecution document. There is no dispute that during pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, the appellants/opposite parties did not furnish the information even after filing of the application in IA 108/2014 to the effect that who has obtained the said call particulars of the mobile phone of the respondent/complainant from them.
11). Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties contended that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in III (2009) CPJ 71 General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and another since the matter has to be referred to the arbitrator under Section 7-B of Telegraph Act, 1885. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/complainant rebutted the same arguing that the said Judgement is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and dismiss the appeal.
12). The District Forum opined that the above Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand because the dispute is not connecting to any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arising between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus i.e, or has been provided but the dispute is to provide the name of the person to whom they provide the information relating to mobile No. 9701371716 for the period 3-6-2012 to 4-6-2012 and non-supply of information amounts to deficiency in service and hence the District Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
13). We have perused the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment above referred to relied on by the Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties reported in 2009 (8) SCC 481 Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 SC, wherein, it was held 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 complaint is maintainable.
14). Further, we have observed that during the pendency of the compliant before the District Forum, even though, the respondent/complainant summoned appellants/opposite parties through District Forum in IA No. 108/2014 , they did not furnish the required information as to who has obtained the particulars of call list of his mobile, which is in their custody. In fact, the said information has to be supplied only when his competent superior officers have requisitioned and hence the District Forum found fault with the appellants/opposite parties and allowed the complaint in part giving three directions. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the said order.
15. Admittedly, the District Forum has given three directions to the appellants/opposite parties. There is no dispute that the appellants/ opposite parties have complied with the 1st direction to the effect that providing information with regard to who such person has approached them for the particulars of the mobile number 9701371716 for the period 3-6-2012 to 4-6-2012. But the 2nd and 3rd directions, i.e. with regard to payment of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.2,000/- towards costs, have not been complied with.
16. After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant, this Commission is of the view that the appellants/opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint to the respondent/ complainant. Point No. 1 is accordingly answered.
17). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.,2000/- towards costs to the respondent/complainant in compliance of the impugned order. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
Dated : 25.09.2018.
