West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/17/18

SRI RAJESH AGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BIPLES DAS

05 Oct 2023

ORDER

Sri Ranjan Ray, Ld. Member

                          

FINAL ORDER/ JUDGEMENT

This complaint under C.P. Act, 1986 was initially filed against the Opposite Party (O.P.)- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Represented by its Gneral Manager, Siliguri Telecom District, A.T.M. Road, College Para, Siliguri, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, District- Darjeeling  who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).

 

The case of the complainant as per his complaint is as follows-

The complainant argued in his plaint that he has / had been using a mobile phone being no. 94340-45025 (Post paid) under the plan of Rs. 525/- (Rupees Five Hundred and Twenty Five) only of the O.P. and in the middle of May, 2016 he approached the O.P. No.1 for ISD facility and the O.P. granted the ISD facility in the said mobile being no. 94340-45025 upon receipt of Rs. 5, 000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only from the complainant as security deposit and intimating him that as soon as the consumption bill charges would reach Rs. 5, 000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only the ISD facility would be disconnected. The complainant added that on 21^st of May, 2016 he went to Dubai with and at around 2:30 p.m. he switched on his said mobile phone and on the next day, i.e., on 22^nd May, 2016 around 3:30 p.m. the complainant noticed that his said mobile phone being no. 94340-45025 was disconnected for which he faced lots of trouble in abroad. The complainant also added that as per his instruction his family members met with the authorities of O.P. and came to know that the bill of the said mobile of the complainant amounted to Rs. 1, 07, 000/- (Rupees One Lac and Seven Thousand) only and unless the said amount was not deposited to the O.P., the ISD would not be restored. The complainant also added that on the next day it was informed by the authorities of the O.P. that his bill amount was Rs. 96, 000/- (Rupees Ninety Six Thousand) only but the O.P. could not explain the difference of the bill amount.

 

The complainant also argued in his plaint that after returning from Dubai on 06.06.2016 he wrote a letter to the O.P. requesting to look into this matter of such exorbitant bill raised by them and also to provide him the details of the bill but the O.P. supplied a incorrect bill to him from where it reflected that the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs. 2, 19, 156/- (Rupees Two Lac Nineteen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Six) only to the O.P. and thereafter, on 10.08.2016 the complainant served a notice under R.T.I. upon the O.P. through his Ld. Advocate to provide him the information regarding six quarries mentioned in said notice but unfortunately the O.P. on or about 26.10.2016 replied the said notice basing upon incorrect and unsatisfactory explanation.

 

The complainant also argued that between the said written conversations another bill dated 01.09.2016 was raised by the O.P. upon the complainant amounting to Rs. 2, 24, 693/- (Rupee Two Lac Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three) only along with lawyer’s notice dated 12.09.2016 which was duly replied on 26.09.2016 by the lawyer of the complainant. The complainant also added that the O.P. failed to provide the details of bill containing the scientific (standard) method of calculation and full information regarding its mode of operation basing upon which the O.P. demanded the exorbitant amount of Rs. 2, 24, 693/- (Rupee Two Lac Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three) only from the complainant. The complainant also added that on account of blocking the said mobile phone number by the O.P. he suffered huge loss in his profession.

 

 

 

The prayers of complainant are as follows :

 

1. To pass an order directing the O.P. to restore connection in the mobile no. 94340-45025.
2. To pass an order directing the O.P. to pay Rs. 3, 00, 000/- (Rupees Three Lac) only for mental agony, pain harassment and loss caused to the complainant.
3. Litigation cost and any other relief.

 

                                      List of Documents filed by the complainant:

1. Original copy of letter issued by the complainant to the O.P. on 06.06.2016.
2. Original copy of reply letter issued by the O.P. on 22.06.2016
3. Original copy of lawyer’s notice on behalf of the O.P. dated 12.09.2016.
4. Original copy of lawyer’s notice (Reply) on behalf of the complainant dated 26.09.2016.
5. Original copy of bill issued by the O.P. dated 01.09.2016towards the complainant.
6. Original copy of R.T.I. issued by the conducting lawyer.
7. Original copy of Reply of R.T.I. issued by the O.P. dated 26.10.2016 and received on 27.10.2016.

         

          Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Represented by its Gneral Manager, Siliguri Telecom District, A.T.M. Road, College Para, Siliguri, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, District- Darjeeling who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.) and as per the W.V. the case is as follows.   

 

In his Written Version (W.V.) the O.P. argued that this case is not maintainable in law as well as on facts and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case. The O.P. also argued that in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court Page- 90, the disputes regarding non- payment of Telephone Bill and disconnection of Mobile being No. 94340-45025, the District Consumer Forum  have no authority to try this case when the matter can be tried elsewhere. The O.P. also argued that the Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of Hon’ble Justice MARKANDEY KATJU and ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY in the aforesaid Judgment also observed and held that when there is a special remedy provided in Section- 7B if the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. The O.P. also argued that the complainant filed this case before this Ld. Forum only for his illegal and unlawful gain and this Consumer case is required to be dismissed in limine.    

 

 

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version and documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.

 

 

 

Points for consideration

 

 

1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?

3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case? 

4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?

5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?

         

Decision with reasons:-

 

All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard arguments of both the parties in full length.

The complainant resides in P.O. - Siliguri Bazar, P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling. Thus, there is no doubt that this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case.

At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P not only through his Written Deposition but also by producing documents.

 

In this case, as per the plaint, the complainant has / had been using a mobile phone being no. 94340-45025 (Post paid) under the plan of Rs. 525/- (Rupees Five Hundred and Twenty Five) only of the O.P. and in the middle of May, 2016 he approached the O.P. No.1 for ISD facility and the O.P. granted the ISD facility in the said mobile being no. 94340-45025 upon receipt of Rs. 5, 000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only from the complainant as security deposit. So, from this fact it is very much clear that the complainant was purchased a plan from O.P. and thus the complainant is a very much consumer as per C.P. Act.

    

In this instant case, the complainant referred two judgments in support of his claim, i.e., 1) BACHAN SINGH BHULLAR VS. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED & ORS. C.C. No. 249 of 2009, the D.C.D.R.F. at Ferozepure and 2) N. Sunil Rao vs Idea Cellular Limited., on 14 September, 2017, The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Telengana.    

 

To counter this point, the O.P. referred a judgment General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 90, where it stated that-

 

“In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B if   the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes  in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred”.     

 

“It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach”.

 

“In Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC 479 : (1995 AIR SCW 2028) it was held that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out motor vehicles accidents. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment”.

 

In this situation the Commission always follows the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India and this Commission has no right to ignore the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India.

 

So, when there is a specific Act is there, this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

Hence, it is,

 

O R D E R E D

 

That the Consumer Case No. 18/ 2017 be and same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. without cost.

 Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.