BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 311/2009 Filed on 12.11.2009
Dated : 31.01.2012
Complainant :
Biju. S, T.C 41/1558, H. No. H9A, Sree Nagar, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-9.
(Party in person)
Opposite parties :
Airtel, Customer Care Centre, Karamana, Karamana P.O.
Bharti Airtel Limited, SL Avenue, Kundanoor Junction, Maradu P.O, Kochi-682 304.
(By adv. G.S. Kalkura)
This O.P having been heard on 03.01.2012, the Forum on 31.01.2012 delivered the following :
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant is as follows: The complainant lost his mobile phone along with Airtel BSNL Sim Card on 22.10.2009. Complainant who had the Airtel Mobile No. 9995733292, contacted Airtel Customer Care Centre, Karamana on 03.11.2009, for retaining the same number and he applied for a duplicate sim card after giving the ID proof, photo and Rs. 49/-, and he started using the same number. But in the evening of 03.11.2009 the service to the same number stopped. Though the same was informed to the opposite parties, there was no positive response from their side. Besides the same, the said number was allotted to some other person. Though that person has finally returned the said number to the complainant, the complainant has filed this complaint for the dereliction of duty and for the loss caused to the complainant due to the deficient act of the opposite party.
Opposite parties appeared before this Forum and contended that the complaint is not maintainable as per the latest ruling on the same. That in the judgement dated 01.09.2009 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan & another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 481, it has been held that the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction on disputes relating to telephone services and telephone bills in the light of the special remedy provided in Sec. 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Telegraph Rules. It is submitted that the opposite parties in the present complaint is a Telegraph Authority as per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act. Hence, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Hon'ble Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and hence this complaint be dismissed as not maintainable.
Hence the question of maintainability was heard as a preliminary issue.
As seen from the averments in the complaint, the dispute appears to be regarding issuance of telephone number and the facility available for the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan & another that “In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Sec. 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. Sec. 7 B of the Telegraph Act reads as under :
Sec. 7 B. Arbitration of Disputes : (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section. (2) The award of the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court. Rule 413 of the “Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules”. In the case in hand complainant has alleged that the complainant has been curtailed from using the mobile No. 9995733292 which brings the case within the ambit of the above ruling. It can be seen that the dispute is regarding availability of the mobile number and the facility available for the same. As far as these kinds of disputes are concerned, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. Hence it is found that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide dispute regarding the service available under the above. Hence as per the dictum of the apex court, at present, in General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan & another we are of the view that this complaint cannot be entertained by this Forum. Hence the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the complainant to approach any legal authority for redressal of his grievances if any.
In the result, the complaint is found not maintainable before the Forum and hence dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach any other legal authority for redressal of his grievances if any.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of January 2012.
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
