Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/504

THE MANAGER IDEA CELLULAR LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANAND KRISHNAN - Opp.Party(s)

T L SREERAM

13 May 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION

 

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 504/2014

JUDGMENT DATED:13/05/2016

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.230/13 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod, order dated : 21.08.2014)

 

PRESENT

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS     : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          Manager,

          Idea Cellular Limited,

          4^th Floor, Mercy Estate,

          Ranipuram, Kochin,

          Kerala, Pin – 682015

 

          (By Adv: Sri. V.S. Sunil Kumar & Sri. T.L. Sreeram)

 

                                                                                      Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Anand Krishnan,

          S/o. Krishnan, Proprietor,

          V-Power Systems and Services,

          Nambiar Keechal P.O., Udma,

          Kasargod.

 

2. Manager,

          Idea Cellular Limited,

          “Rangees”, Udma P.O.,

          Palakunnu, Kasargod.

 

 

 JUDGMENT

 

SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant is the 1^st opposite party in CC No.230/2013 in the CDRF, Kasargod.  The complainant, respondent was a customer of the 1^st opposite party.  It is alleged in the complaint that he was using a mobile sim provided by the 1^st opposite party exclusively for the purpose of his business.  But on 9.8.13 the opposite parties abruptly disconnected the sim without any valid reason.  They blocked out all incoming and outgoing calls and as a result the complainant suffered due to the isolation of his customers.

          2.      On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared before the consumer forum through an advocate but failed to file version. Hence relying on the deposition of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A7 marked though him, the consumer forum held that deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties was established and accordingly allowed the complaint.   Compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- were awarded.  The 1^st opposite party challenges the correctness of the order of the consumer forum mainly the ground that the consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain such matters.

          3.      It appears that the appellant claimed that they disconnected the sim as per rules as the complainant did not use the sim continuously for 90 days.  The consumer forum found that this was factually incorrect for as per Ext.A7 43 calls were made from the disconnected sim during the last 90 days.  Obviously the complainant was using the sim for the purpose of his business as claimed and disconnection of the sim was made without apparent reason.  Therefore actually deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is clearly established.

          4.      The argument of the appellant is based on Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, as per which remedy is to be sought through arbitration and therefore according to the appellant the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is barred by implication.  The appellant apparently relies on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in revision petition No.531/2013.  It was a case in which dispute was raised in connection with disconnection of a mobile phone of the opposite party Idea Cellular Ltd. The national commission relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and another (2009) 8SCC 481 held that the revision petition was without merit.  The revision petition was filed challenging the order of the State Commission which allowed an appeal filed against the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint.  The argument that in such matters the jurisdiction of the consumer forum is barred by implication was upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission. 

                   5.      But doubt remains whether Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, provides an effective remedy for consumers like owners of mobile phones.  Central Government has to appoint arbitrators and it is practically difficult for a cellular phone owner to approach the central government.  We are told that an arbitrator is appointed generally for the Kerala State and it is obviously difficult for any owner of a cellular phone to approach central government with a dispute of this nature.   In order to bar a consumer complaint by implication, it must be a case in which Section 7B as well as Consumer Protection Act applies and the alternative remedy provided must be equally efficacious.  A reading of Section 7B shows that the dispute must relate to any telegraph line appliance or apparatus and here the dispute is not relating to any telegraph line but use of a mobile phone which involves no use of any specific line, for calls may be directed at times through different lines and disconnection of mobile phone was made for untenable reason.  However the judgments of the National Commission as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court are binding on this Commission.  Hence it is only to be held that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints.   Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.

          In the result the appeal is allowed.  The order of consumer forum Kasargod in CC No.230/13 dated 21.08.2014 is set aside.  The complaint is dismissed.  The parties are directed to bear their costs in the appeal.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSALCOMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 504/2014

JUDGMENT DATED:13/05/2016

 

nb