DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.592 of 13-12-2011
Decided on 03-01-2012
Sukhdeep Singh son of Sh. Binder Pal Singh, aged about 27 years, Resident of H.No.19, Namdev Nagar, Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Aircel Store, The Mall, Opp. Pizzanno Restaurant, Bathinda, through its Manager/Authorized person.
Aircel, Regional/Regd. Office Dishnet Wireless Limited, C-82, 2nd Floor, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, S.A.S.Nagar,
Mohali, Punjab, through its MD/Authorized person.
Bharti Airtel Limited, 83/1, Liberty Chowk, Ist Floor, Above State Bank of India Life Insurance, Bathinda, through its
Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Amanpal Singh Sekhon, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Opposite parties not summoned
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased the prepaid mobile connection No.98765-37444 of Airtel Company about 7/8 years back and has been using the said connection. The complainant has been getting the same recharged from time to time as per his requirement. At the time of obtaining the said connection, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents alongwith photograph and indentity proof etc. with the opposite party No.3. Thereafter, the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the opposite party No.3. So, he wanted to obtain the mobile connection of Aircel company i.e. opposite party Nos.1&2. As per the new plan by all mobile companies to get the mobile connections converted into any other company with same mobile number, the complainant got his mobile connection converted with Aircel connection in the month of October, 2011 by depositing the requisite fee and other formalities as required by the opposite party Nos.1&2. Thereafter, the complainant has been using the said new connection as per his requirement for about 15/20 days. The complainant was also allotted Unique Porting Code No.AP549649 by the opposite party Nos.1&2. The complainant has alleged that in the month of November, 2011, the opposite party Nos.1&2 disconnected the mobile connection of the complainant without assigning any reason and without sending any prior massage to the complainant. The complainant inquired about the same from the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to deposit his I.D. Proof. The complainant supplied the same to the opposite party No.1 on 04.11.2011 and the opposite party No.1 assurred the complainant to restore his mobile connection within few hours but to no effect. Thereafter, again the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.1 on 07.11.2011. On approaching the complainant, the opposite party No.1 again asked the complainant to deposit the I.D. proof with them as the same has been lost/mis-placed. The complainant again submitted his I.D. proof on the same day with the opposite party No.1 but despite that the connection of the complainant has not been restored till date. The complainant has repeatedly requested the opposite party No.1 to restore his mobile connection but they are postponing the matter on one or the other pretext. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to restore the said mobile connection along with cost and compensation.
2. The preliminary hearing is given to the complainant. The record placed on file by the complainant perused.
3. The contention of the complainant is that he had purchased mobile connection No.98765-37444 of Airtel Company and has been using the same. He has been getting the said connection recharged as per his requirement from time to time. Thereafter, he wanted to get his mobile connection converted from Airtel to Aircel as such he deposited the requisite fee and completed other formalities with the opposite party Nos.1&2 in the month of October, 2011. Thereafter, the complainant has been using the said new connection as per his requirement for about 15/20 days and he was also allotted Unique Porting Code No.AP549649 by the opposite party Nos.1&2. In the month of November, 2011, the opposite party Nos.1&2 disconnected his mobile connection without quoting any reason and sending any prior massage. On aporoaching and asking of the opposite party No.1, he supplied the the ID proof on 04.11.2011 but his connection was not restored. He revisited the office of the opposite party No.1 on 07.11.2011. The opposite party No.1 again asked him to submit the I.D. proof as the same has been lost. The complainant again submitted his I.D. proof with the opposite party No.1 but despite completing all the formalities, the opposite party Nos.1&2 have not restored the mobile connection of the complainant.
4. The complainant has approached this Forum with the greivances against the opposite party No.1&2 that they have disconnected the mobile connection of the complainant without any reason. With regard to the disputes relating to the telecommunication, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain such complaints. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr., Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 01.09.2009 wherein it has been held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(d)(g) and (o) and Section 11 – Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 7B – Jurisdiction – Telephone connection of Respondent disconnected for non payment of telephone bill – Respondent filed complaint before Consumer Forum – Held, Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction – There is a special remedy in Section 7B of Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills – Thus, remedy under Consumer Protection Act is barred by implication – Special law overrides the general law – Order of Consumer Forum restoring the connection and imposing the penalty set aside.”
Further, the support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Prakash Verma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr., R.P.No.1703 of 2010, wherein it has been held that :-
“Fora below have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. - (2009) 8 SCC 481 wherein it has been held that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all the subordinate courts. There is no scope for interference. Dismissed.”
Our own State Commission relying upon the above cited law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has given the same view in case titled “Punjab Khaptkar Sangh Vs. Spice Communication Ltd. decided on 07.01.2011.”
5. In view of what has been discussed above, the matter regarding the tele communication services is to be decided by the arbitration. Hence, this Forum has no jurisdictoin to try and entertain the present complaint. Thus, this complaint is dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court/authority for the redressal of his greivances.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’
Pronounced in open Forum
03-01-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) (Amarjeet Paul)
Member Member
