DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Anand Kumar s/o Late Sh.M.L.Rampal, Partner in Kannav Associates, SCO No.13-14, First Floor (Above More Store), Sector 125, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, Greater Mohali, Punjab, r/o House No.596, Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana).

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Airtel, through its Manager, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh – 160101.

2.       Mr.Shubham (Officer for Punjab) at Airtel Office, C-34 Saahi Majra, Phase 2, Industrial Area, Mohali.

3.       Mr.Gurcharan – Airtel Office, C-34 Saahi Majra, Phase 2, Industrial Area, Mohali, Contact No.9876168257.

4.       Mr.Dharmendra - Airtel Office, C-34 Saahi Majra, Phase 2, Industrial Area, Mohali, Contact No.9779885476.

5.       Airtel Complaint Officer – Airtel Office, C-34, Saahi Majra, Phase 2, Industrial Area, Mohali, Contact No.9779885448.

6.       Manager, Bharti Cresent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase II, New Delhi, 70, India.

7.       Manager, Airtel Centre, Plot No.16, 6^th floor, Udyog Vihar, Ph-4, Gurgaon – 122001, Haryana, India.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Gagan Deep Goel, Counsel for complainant.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Anand Kumar, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Airtel & Ors. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he has been using an Airtel Postpaid Corporate Connection in the name of registered partnership firm by the name ‘Kannav Associates’. The said firm is having one corporate connection plan i.e. 97799-67979 maintained by the OP Company. The whole business of the complainant was based upon the said phone and the sole source of earning his livelihood was by advertising his number in different newspapers for the purpose of selling and purchasing the properties of his clients and in turn earning commissions on the said sale. The complainant has further alleged that the said firm has been depositing the bills in time. The said mobile number of the complainant was deactivated without any intimation/reason/need of the company. The complainant was harassed by the OP Company and was not able to provide a solution for the redressal of the grievance lodged by him. On 2.1.2013 at around 8 PM, the phone No.97799-67979 lost its connectivity and a recorded message flashed (you have dialed an incorrect number of invalid number). The complainant contacted the customer care of the OP and he was told that due to some problem in the system, the payments made by him were not credited to his account and he was asked to deposit Rs.6,000/- with the company.  The complainant was forced to deposit the money and was told that his number will not be activated till the time payment is not made. Having no other alternative, the complainant had to deposit the said sum of Rs.6,000/- before the actual due date of his bill, which was 12.1.2013.  However, despite requests and reminders of the complainant, the said number was not activated and he was told that he would be issued a new sim card after resubmission of all the relevant papers. The complainant visited the office of the OPs and pleaded for the activation of his phone number because his business was suffering.  Meanwhile the complainant not believing the fake commitments of the OPs procured another sim card of a different company. The complainant sent an email to the Nodal Officer Airtel, Punjab after engaging an Advocate and he was informed that the services of his Airtel mobile number had been restricted w.e.f. 16.11.2012 due to non receipt of payment and the same was permanently disconnected on 2.1.2013. The complainant was not satisfied with the reply from the Nodal Officer and sent a complaint to appellate authority of Airtel Punjab Circle. The appellate authority of Airtel Punjab Circle informed the complainant that the services of his number were well connected w.e.f. 17.1.2013 with postpaid services. Later on, an executive of the company telephonically apologized to the Counsel/Advocate of the complainant for delay and he was informed that the services of the telephone No.9779967979 were well connected w.e.f. 18.1.2013. However, when the complainant tried to call on his previous number, the said number was still not active. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.1,00,000/- for financial loss and Rs.22,000/- towards litigation expenses.  

2.                After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant on the question of admissibility of the complaint, we find that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the question involved in the complaint regarding deactivation of mobile No. 97799-67979 of the complainant despite payment of bills in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 on 1.9.2009.  In the above said judgment, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. 

3.                It is pertinent to note that one Prakash Verma filed a consumer complaint against Idea Cellular Limited which was dismissed by the Forum while relying upon the judgment of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and another. Then Mr.Prakash Verma filed a revision petition No.1703 of 2010 before the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble National Commission passed the following order on 21.5.2010 :-

“Fora below have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another – (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.”

It is also worth nothing that thereafter Prakash Verma filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.27577 of 2010 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1.10.2010 dismissed that Special Leave Petition. In this view of the matter, any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.

4.                The learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to private service providers. However, there is no force in this contention. In a latest judgment Hon’ble State Commission of Punjab in Punjab Khapatkar Sangh (regd.) Vs. Spice Communication Limited, 2011 CTJ 574 (SP) (SCDRC) has held that the controversy that the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and another applies only to the landline telephones comes to an end and the law stands settled that the Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint concerning the telephones, whether landlines or mobile.

5.                For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that the dispute between the parties cannot be decided by this Forum because of special remedy of arbitration provided under the Indian Telegraph Act.

6.                Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed holding that the dispute between the complainant and the OPs can be resolved by taking recourse to the arbitration proceedings.

7.                The certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge. The file be consigned.