BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.392 of 2018

Date of Instt. 24.09.2018

Date of Decision: 23.04.2019

Kamaljit Singh s/o Sh. Sampuran Singh, resident of H. No.488, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Near Ghai Hospital, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar-4, Gurgaon- 122015, Haryana through its Manager.

2. Bharti Airtel Limited, Jyoti Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. B. S. Saini, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. M. S. Sachdev, Adv Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant having airtel mobile connection No.9878600013 in his name and paying the bill of the said number regularly. During the period of 06.06.2018 to 30.08.2018, the complainant has shifted to abroad for his domestic works and he has not used the above said mobile number in the said period, but the OPs has sent a bill to the complainant for an amounting to Rs.14,000/- for the period of 05.07.2018 to 04.08.2018. That on 31.08.2018, the complainant has returned back to India and he surprised to know that the outgoing facility of the said mobile number is disconnected by the OPs without any notice or intimation. The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- to the OP for continuation of outgoing of his mobile number, but the OPs have not started his outgoing facility till today and the OPs also demanded illegally payment of Rs.14,000/- from the complainant, then the complainant served a legal notice dated 08.09.2018 through his counsel, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to start the outgoing facility of the mobile number of the complainant and also return Rs.5000/-, which has been illegally recovered from the complainant and further OPs be directed to withdraw the bill of Rs.14,000/-. OPs be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension, agony and harassment and be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed joint reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. It is further averred that the complaint is bad on account of lack of jurisdiction. It is further humbly submitted that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the present complaint and even the complaint is frivolous and vexatious exercise and is fit to be dismissed. It is further submitted that in view of the Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint rather the matter should be referred to the Arbitrator. On merits, the factum in regard to running the said mobile number in the name of the complainant, is admitted and it is also admitted that the bill for the month June 2018 to July 2018 and July 2018 to August 2018 has been sent to the complainant, but the bills are according to the use of the said number. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and further submitted that the outgoing facility of the mobile number of the complainant was disconnected because the complainant has not paid the due bill amount and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3. Rejoinder not filed. In order to prove their respective version, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents alongwith the complaint as well as written reply.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

5. First of all, we preferred to discuss the legal aspect as pointed out by the counsel for the OPs that as per Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint rather such like matter should be referred to the Arbitrator, in view of the aforesaid Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act and in support of this version, the counsel for the OP also referred a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled as “General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Another” (Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004).

6. We have considered this plea of the counsel for the OPs that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint because as per Section 7-B of 'The Indian Telegraph Act', the jurisdiction of the Court and any Tribunal is barred and this factum has been also decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The plea taken by the OP is obviously admitted, but the facts of the case in hand are some how different because the OPs No.1 and 2 are a private telecommunication service provider and if telecommunication services is provided by the private company, then the same is not covered under Section 7-B of 'The Indian Telegraph Act' as well as under the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of this observation, we like to get assistance of one judgment of our Hon'ble State Commission, cited in 2010(4) CLT 518, titled as “Spice Communication Pvt. Ltd Vs. Gurinder Kaur and another” and as such, the reply of the query put by the OPs No.1 and 2, is absolutely and satisfactorily given as above.

7. Further, we have considered the main contention of the complainant that the OP has raised illegal and un-necessary huge bill amount of the complainant i.e. Rs.14,000/- despite the fact that during that period the complainant remained in abroad i.e. from 06.06.2018 to 30.08.2018, when the complainant was not in India and he did not use the said mobile connection, then how such a huge bill raised by the OPs and in support of this, the complainant placed on the file the relevant bills Ex.C-1 and its detail Ex.C-2 and further bill Ex.C-3 and its detail Ex.C-4.

8. We have gone through the bills referred by the learned counsel for the complainant i.e. Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-3. Bill Ex.C-3 relating to period 5 June, 2018 to 4 July, 2018 for an amount of Rs.12,670.65 and after adding the previous balance of Rs.692/-, the total amount payable by the complainant has been shown in the said bill of Rs.13,362.67 and further the bill dated 5 July, 2018 to 4 August, 2018 Ex.C-1 showing the previous amount of Rs.13,362.67, out of which Rs.4000/- was paid by the complainant in cash and the current bill amount Rs.5961/- and total payable by the complainant Rs.15,324.63 and detail of the amount has been very well mentioned in the Detail Reports Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4. Apart from that the OP has also brought on the file same bills i.e. bill for the period 5 June 2018 to 4 July 2018 as Annexure OP-2. Alongwith this bill, the OP has also brought on the file the detail of the charges, wherein categorically mentioned that the complainant was using international roaming charges and even complete detail of the mobile connection used by the complainant during that period from Australia, is also placed on the file, in regard to both the bills i.e. the other bill for the period 5 July, 2018 to 4 August, 2018 Annexure OP-3. If we go through the details, wherein clearly described the time and date when the complainant used the said mobile number by utilizing international roaming. The complainant has not disclosed this fact that he was using the mobile number even in abroad and by concealing that fact, filed the instant complaint, which is not maintainable because whenever any person suppressed any material facts from the Forum, then he is not entitled for the discretionary relief.

9. From the above detailed discussion, we came to conclusion that there is no substances in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

23.04.2019 Member President