Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.11.2009, 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, being not maintainable. 2. The complainant was a subscriber of Mobile Connection No.9876313779 under Tariff Plan “Alex-350” provided by the OP Company along with add-on connection bearing No.99157-43779 which was used by his wife. It was stated that the complainant after shifting from Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, to House No.3033, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh started facing network problems with regard to connectivity of both the connections, as a result whereof, the same automatically used to disconnect while attending or making any call. A complaint was made to the OPs, who assured to send their representative, but to no avail. However, the bills were paid regularly. It was further stated that the complainant again sent a complaint through e-mail to the OPs on 12.1.2008 Annexure C-1, with regard to the poor connectivity, in response to which, he received an assurance that they would send their Engineer/Technical person to examine the problem practically or to disconnect both the connections, but again nothing was done. Ultimately, on 4.3.2008, the complainant received a call from the Customer Care Executive of the OPs, expressing their inability, to rectify the problem of connectivity. The complainant then requested them to disconnect his connections, but the same was not done. Therefore, a legal notice Annexure C-2 (colly) was sent to them. It was further stated that the representatives of the OPs started harassing him, by making calls time and again, as well as, to his relatives, with regard to the outstanding dues, and used defamatory language, and thereby tarnished his image in his circle. It was further stated that the OPs instead of settling the claim of the complainant, and replying to the notice, sent an agent, who misrepresented himself, as a Police Officer, and threatened that he had procured non-bailable warrants, against him, and would execute the same, in case of non-payment of the entire amount. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to gross deficiency, in rendering service, and indulging into unfair trade practice. It was further stated that great mental tension, humiliation and physical harassment, was caused to the complainant, on account of the aforesaid acts of the OPs. 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 him. 3. OP Nos.1 & 2, in their written reply, pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishanan & Another,2009 CTJ 1062(SC)(CP). It was stated that there was no network problem, in the area of the complainant, as alleged. It was further stated that the complainant was billed for the usage of the mobile connection, but he failed to pay the charges. It was further stated that a notice dated 11.2.2009 for clearing the outstanding dues of Rs.9126.16p was sent to the complainant, but he had not cleared the same. It was further stated that, as such, the complainant had defaulted in not clearing the outstanding dues. It was further stated that the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service to the complainant, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. 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, the District Forum came to the conclusion, that the complaint was not maintainable and dismissed the same. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed, by the appellant/complainant. 7. None put in appearance, on behalf of the respondents, despite service. They were accordingly proceeded against ex parte. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishanan & Another’s case (supra). He further submitted that, in the instant case, the issue involved was not only with regard to non-payment of the bill or providing of connectivity, but also of indulging into unfair trade practice by the respondents by making calls to the complainant, as also to his relatives from time to time, by using defamatory language and thereby tarnishing his image in his circle. He further submitted that such a dispute did not fall within the purview of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, and, as such, the principle of law, laid down in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishanan & Another’s case (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. He also placed reliance on Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jayesh H.Pandya and another AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2252, to contend that when two reliefs, are sought, one referable to the arbitrator, and the other could only be decided by way of a civil suit, then bifurcation of such reliefs, was not permissible. He further submitted that the District Forum had the jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the question, as to whether, the OPs/respondents indulged into unfair trade practice, or not, as this matter clearly fell within the purview of the Act. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong in dismissing the complaint by holding that it was not maintainable. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The Hon’ble Supreme in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishanan & Another’s case (supra), held that any dispute, between the subscriber, and the Telegraph Authority, can be resolved, by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only. Not only this, in its latest judgment titled as Parkash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Limited and another, 2011CTJ551(CP), SLP filed against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, was dismissed in limine by the Apex Court. The dispute, in the instant case, fell within the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. As such, the District Forum, was right, in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The District Forum, was also right in dismissing the complaint, being not maintainable, for want of jurisdiction. 11. The principle of law, laid down in Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra), relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. No doubt, an allegation was made in the complaint, that the representative of the OPs, started making calls to the complainant, and his relatives by using defamatory language. Mere allegation, in the complaint, is not sufficient without any reliable evidence to prove the same. Under these circumstances, there was no question of bifurcation of the reliefs, in the instant case. The main issue raised by the complainant, fell within the purview of the Section-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The facts of Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jayesh H.Pandya and another’s case (supra), are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. The principle of law, laid down, therein, is not applicable to this case. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail and the same is rejected. 12. The impugned order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the appellant shall be at liberty to approach any other appropriate Forum/Authority for redressal of his grievance, in accordance with the provision of law. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
