MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.    This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 5.12.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 616 of 2008.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had taken mobile connection from the OPs bearing No.9878034440 and he received a bill dated 18.11.2007 for Rs.1852.76 paise, which was duly paid by the complainant vide cheque No.666051, dated 28.11.2007 drawn on State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh. The outgoing services of the mobile connection of the complainant was subsequently barred for non-payment of the aforesaid bill and after great pursuasion, the OPs realized their mistake and restored the services. The OPs issued bill dated 18.12.2007 for an amount of Rs.1903.11paise to the complainant. The complainant asked the OPs to issue the details of the calls, which was accordingly issued by the OPs. In the outgoing ISD column at Serial No.14 showed that on 30.11.2007 a call was made at 18:16:05 at telephone No. 61411559051, showing the duration of 01:12:32, for which an amount of Rs.467.20paise was charged by the OPs and the next call on the same date was also made at 18:17:47 at the same telephone number, the duration of which was 00:05.44, for which an amount of Rs.38.40 paise was charged and the entries in the bills were totally false, baseless and incorrect. Since the OPs had wrongly charged from the complainant at serial No.14 in the ISD outgoing column, the bill in question was not paid in time under protest. A legal notice dated 11.1.2008 was also served upon the OPs but no fruitful response was given from their side. Hence, the complaint was filed. 

3.       Reply was filed by the OPs and pleaded that since the OPs had computerized system, therefore, there was no chance of any error. It was pleaded that on 15.12.2007 the outgoing services to the number of the complainant was barred as his billed as well as unbilled usage had exceeded his credit limit of Rs.3,500/-. The payment was made by the complainant and the concerned representative did not report it to the OP and when it come to their knowledge, the outgoing calls to his mobile number were instantly restored on 18.12.2008. It was also pleaded by the OPs that the complainant had made an ISD call to telephone No. 61411559051 and Rs.467.20 paise were charged as per the records, the second call was made by putting the first call on hold which had resulted in the over lapping of the call timings. Due to computerized system, the complainant had rightly been billed as per the usage.  All other material allegation leveled by the complainant in the complaint were controverted and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.    The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

5.    The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as the same was found to be meritless.

6.       Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal filed by the complainant in which it has been stated that the complainant had approached the learned District Forum against the deficiency in service on the part of OPs on two counts. Firstly, debarring the services in respect of the mobile phone of the complainant on 15.12.2007 illegally and unlawfully on the plea that the bill have not been paid in time. In the written statement, the OPs admitted their negligency in not accounting for the payment made by the complainant by their concerned representative and after it came to their knowledge, the OPs had unbarred the outgoing calls to his mobile number. Admittedly, the OPs had been deficient in services and had adopted unfair trade practice but the learned District Forum have not discussed this part of the complaint. The complainant was also having the grudge on the second count of the complaint whereby the OPs vide their bill dated 18.12.2007 has shown in the column of ISD calls, at serial No. 14 that on 30.11.2007 the call was made at 18:16:05 at telephone No.61411559051 showing the duration of 01:12:32 and charged an amount of Rs.467.20 paise. The next call on the same date i.e. 30.11.2007 the call time has been shown as 18:17:47 to the same telephone number showing the duration of 00:05:44 and thereby charging an amount of Rs.38.40 paise. It is not understandable as to how the call made at 18:16:05 having duaration of 01:12:32 could be disconnected for making the second call at 18:17:47 at the same telephone number. As per averments of the OPs, the second call was made by putting the first call on hold which has resulted in the overlapping of the call timings, which is not possible in normal circumstances. The complainant had inquired this fact from other telecom companies and gathered that the proposition as stated by the OPs was not possible in normal circumstances. It is believed that the OPs has misguided the learned District Forum while demonstrating the technique for their wrongful gains and thereby had misused the process of law. The learned District Forum has not appreciated the evidence filed by the complainant while deciding the complaint. The OPs concocted a different story by wriggling the facts before the learned District Forum which resulted in the dismissal of the complaint. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

7.    We have heard Sh.K.S.Arya, Advocate for the appellant and Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the respondents and carefully gone through the file.

8.       During the course of arguments it has been observed by us that the respondent/OP being a telecommunication company is fully governed by Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Indian Wireless Telegraph Act, 1933 as modified or amended from time to time. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the case in hand is squarely covered by the law laid down in the case titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 decided on 1.9.2009 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In this view of the matter and as per observations made in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Anr.(supra), the Foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters. Therefore, this case is dismissed without being decided on merits. However, parties are at liberty to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of their grievances available to them under law. It is also made clear that period already taken in pursuing this matter may not be taken into consideration by the appropriate Forum, if so approached by the appellant.

9.       Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

Pronounced.

23^rd April, 2010.