DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Vivek High School, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh, through its Administrator Mrs. Sheila Mamik.

                ---Complainant

Vs

1.   Bharti Airtel Limited, through its authorized signatory, Plot No. 21, Rajiv Gandhi, I.T. Park, Chandigarh – 160001.

2.   Bharti Airtel Limited, through its Managing Director, Circle Office, 224, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-3, New Delhi – 20.

---- Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               PRESIDING MEMBER

                                Sh. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Inderjit Kaushal, Counsel for Complainant.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The instant complaint has been filed against the Opposite Parties with the grievance of excessive bill for Rs.61,504.54/- raised by the Opposite Parties against Mobile No.98159-16434 allotted to the Administrator Mrs. Sheila Mamik by the School (Complainant). A tabulated form of mobile internet roaming charges from 4^th Jan. till 8^th Jan. totalling Rs.43,169.98P has been given regarding usage in Thailand. It has been averred in the complaint that Mrs. Sheila Mamik had not used the mobile internet at all for the said dates, as she was well connected through internet available at the hotel during her stay in Thailand. The Complainant has alleged that no person can download so much data on mobile internet. Copy of the bill and call details have been placed on record at Annexure C-2 and C-3. The Complainant has also stated that a letter was sent to the Opposite Parties through e-mail with this grievance, requesting for rectification of the mobile bill. However, the Opposite Parties in reply maintained that there was no over charging and the matter had been closed.

           As the last date for payment of bill was approaching, the Complainant facing threat of disconnection made payment of Rs.70,470.49P vide cheque dated 31.1.2013. The Complainant has now filed the instant complaint with the request that the Opposite Parties be directed to refund an amount of Rs.18,334/-, besides the disputed bill of Rs.61,504/- for the period of stay in Thailand, along with interest, damages and costs of ligation.

2.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant on the point of jurisdiction of this Forum in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr.” in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009, also followed by the Hon’ble National Commission; at the time of admission hearing of the instant complaint.

3.         The learned Counsel for the complainant while arguing the matter urged that the dispute in the present case did not fall within the ambit of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 because the Opposite Parties are not a telegraph authority. He also argued that the judgment in case titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 on 1.9.2009 is not applicable to the private service providers.

4.         After giving due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the Complainant while also appreciating the grievance of the Complainant with regard to excess billing on account of usage of internet during the stay of the School Administrator in Thailand, we express our inability to issue notice to the Opposite Parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid out in the above cited case that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 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.   

5.         Hence, in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed in limine. However, liberty is granted to the Complainant to approach the appropriate authority/court for redressal of its grievance, as permitted by law.

6.         The certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

09^th April, 2013.                                   

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU

MEMBER