Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.5.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant (now appellant), for lack of jurisdiction. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant obtained telephone and broadband connection bearing No. 0172-4676419 from the OP, in the year 2008. While getting the aforesaid connection, the complainant provided Mobile No.98144-36419, of her husband, as an alternative contact number. On 10.6.2010, the complainant requested the OP to disconnect the aforesaid connection, but it did not do so. Thereafter, the complainant sent a registered notice on 18.6.2010 for disconnection of the aforesaid connection and, in the meanwhile, she did not use the telephone number or the internet. On 5.7.2010, the complainant deposited the usage charges upto 18.6.2010, but to her surprise, the OP sent bill for August, 2010. It was stated that the officials of the OP started making calls to the alternate number, provided by the complainant, which was being used by her husband, and harassed him, one way or the other. It was further stated that the officials of the OP were hurling threats to pay bills subsequent to July, 2010 amounting to Rs.2100/-, to avoid the consequence of issuance of non-bailable warrants. It was further stated that the complainant deposited the amount vide Annexure C-8. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OP, amounted to gross deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by her. 3. The OP, in its reply, took up the preliminary objection, that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no jurisdiction, to adjudicate the controversy, in question. It was admitted that the request of the complainant for disconnection of telephone and broadband connection bearing No.0172-4676419 was received on 10.6.2010. It was also admitted that notice dated 18.6.2010 was received from the complainant, for the aforesaid purpose. It was stated that the complainant deposited the bill raised for the billing period upto 18.6.2010. It was further stated that a bill for the monthly period of August 2010, was raised qua the connection of the complainant bearing No. 0172-4676419. It was denied that the officials of the OP intimidated the husband of the complainant, in any manner. It was further stated that the OP was ready and willing to pay Rs.2100/-, the amount of bill. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, on the ground, that it had no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant. 7. None appeared, on behalf of the appellant. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the respondent , and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The short question, that falls for determination, is, as to whether, the District Forum had the jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute, or not ? Undisputedly, the complainant obtained the telephone and broadband connection bearing No.172-4676419 from the OP, in the year 2008. In the complaint, it was, in clear-cut terms, stated by the complainant, that she made a request to the OP on 10.6.2010 to disconnect the connection, but it did not do so. It was also stated by her that she sent a registered notice dated 18.6.2010, for the aforesaid purpose, but no action was taken by the OP. She also asserted that she did not use telephone number or internet from the day, she made request for disconnection thereof. In the written reply, filed by the OP, in para-3, on merits, it was admitted that request dated 10.6.2010 and registered notice dated 18.6.2010 for disconnection of the connection was received by it, from the complainant. Once, the request was received by the OP for the disconnection of the aforesaid connection of the complainant, followed by a registered notice, it was its duty to effect disconnection immediately and not to send the bill, for the subsequent period. No doubt, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the procedure had to be followed for disconnection of the connection, on receipt of the request of the complainant, which took time, and there, was no malafide intention on the part of the OP, in acceding to her request. He further submitted that, it was, on account of this reason, that sometime was taken for disconnection. It was not a case, in which excessive bill was sent by the OP in respect of the aforesaid connection. It was also not a case relating to any defect, in the instrument. Under these circumstances, the matter did not fall within the purview of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. The principle of law, laid down in Prakash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Ltd. & anr Special Leave to Appeal decided by the Apex Court on 1.10.2010, was, thus, not applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in that case, the dispute fell within the purview of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. By not disconnecting the connection of the complainant, referred to above, on her request, and registered notice, the OP, was allegedly deficient, in rendering service. Instead of disconnecting the aforesaid connection, it continued sending the bills. Though the Counsel for the OP, submitted that the OP was ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs.2100/- deposited by the complainant, for the period, subsequent to 10.6.2010, when the request of disconnection was made , yet that did not mean that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, fell into a grave error, in holding that it had no jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. 10. The order of the District Forum, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order is set aside. The District Forum is directed to decide the complaint on merits, after perusing the evidence, produced on record, and hearing the Counsel for the parties. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, on 29.11.2011 at 10.30 A.M. 13. The record of the District Forum, alongwith certified copy of the order passed by this Commission, be sent to the District Forum, immediately. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
