Date of Filing: 02/11/2011

        Date of Order: 28/12/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  28^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

C.C. NO.2006 OF 2011

B.N.Venkatesh Murthy,

Advocate, ‘JAYA’ No.807,

Banashankari 3^rd Stage, 2^nd Phase,

7^th Block (on ringroad, Hosakerehalli),

BANGALORE-560 085.

(Rep. by In person)                                                                  ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1) The Chairman & Managing Director,

Bharati Airtel Limited, Bharati Crescent,

No.1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kung, Phase II, New Delhi-70.

(2) Head Customer Service & Finance,

Bharati Airtel Limited, No.55,

Divyasree Towers, Bannerghatta Main

Road, Bangalore-560 029.

(Rep. by Sri.B.J.Mahesh, Advocate)                                       …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to restore the telephone connection of the cell phone No.9980774060, extent its validity and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-,  are necessary:-

The complainant obtained a cell phone No.9980774060 from the opposite party by providing all necessary documents, required under the law, and demanded by the opposite party and it was a post paid connection earlier in the year 2007.  The complainant requested the opposite party to change from post paid to pre-paid on 26.02.2008, 29.02.2008 and 04.03.2008. In February/March-2011, the opposite parties sent an SMS to the complainant to produce the address proof.  As the complainant had already submitted all the documents there was no necessity for him to submit it again.  On 17.08.2011 the opposite party disconnected the telephone.  The complainant visited the office of the opposite parties several times talked to their number contacted Meenakshi Bora and others and also issued notice even then it has not been reconnected.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

          In view of the 2009 AIR SCW-5631 the complaint is not maintainable.  The obtaining of the cell phone prepaid its connection, disconnection are all admitted.  The opposite party is guided by the guidelines of the authority.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, the parties have filed their affidavits and documents.  The arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had obtained the cell phone having SIM No.9980774060 from the opposite party after submitting all the necessary documents regarding proof of address etc.,.  The complainant obtained connection and was using the mobile by paying necessary charges to the opposite party.

7.       It is also an admitted fact that the opposite parties again wanted certain proof of address and the complainant as already had submitted the documents he requested the opposite party not to disconnect, even then on 17.08.2011 the opposite parties have disconnected the mobile.  This is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

8.       The main contention of the opposite party is that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 dated: 01.09.2009 and 2009 AIR SCW – 5631 this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  This is an untenable contention.  Considering the above said judgment of Apex Court in 2011 CTJ 237 it has been ruled thus:-

“Mobile phone-Jurisdiction-Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 3-Indian Telegraph Act, 1885-Section 7-B-Complainant’s dispute pertained to the two mobile phone bills received by her from the opposite party-Complaint allowed by the District Forum-Both the bills struck off-Compensation awarded to the complainant-Appeal-Whether the dispute of a mobile phone covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom v. M.Krishnan and another ? – Held, no-Provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act come into play only if there is some agreement between the parties that any dispute arising between them shall be referred to an arbitrator for its resolution-No such agreement brought on record-A careful perusal of the apex Court’s judgment shows that Section 7-B covered only the disputes concerning the landline apparatus and appliances and not the wireless service like the service being rendered by the mobile phone companies-Accordingly held : the mobile phone disputes are neither covered by the judgment of the apex Court nor by the Indian Telegraph Act-Consequently held : the Consumer Forums are competent to take cognizance of the disputes of mobile phones-Complainant having used the mobile phone service, liable to pay the mobile phone service charges of the last bill but not the late fee charges as the appellant itself sent the bill after two months’ delay-Appeal allowed.”

Further in 2011 CTJ 439 it has been ruled thus:-

“Mobile phone-Jurisdiction-Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Indian Telegraph Act, 1885-Section 7-B-Complainant’s mobile phone disconnected-Subsequently restored-complaint to the District Forum alleging that he suffered personal losses due to the disconnection-Compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded-Appeal-Jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum disputed-Contended that in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in General Manager, Telecom v. M.Krishnan and another, the parties be directed to the remedy of arbitration under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act-Held: that the said provision is for the disputes between the telegraph authority and the individual concerned-Nothing in the above order to the effect that it applies to the private service providers-Appeal dismissed.”

That means the said judgments of the Apex Court is applicable only to the Government agency that is BSNL and not applicable to the private mobile service providers.  Hence under these circumstances the said contention is an untenable one.

9.       Demanding the complainant to produce again and again the proof of address and disconnecting the mobile phone is nothing but an unfair trade practice as rightly contended.  During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the opposite parties fairly submitted that they are going to reconnect the mobile connection to the complainant.  The said submission is recorded and accorded.  Hence, we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.       The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.       The opposite party is directed to restore, reconnect the mobile connection No.9980774060 within 15 days from the date of this order.  The opposite party is directed to extend the validity of the connection for the period it had disconnected.

3.       The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation.

4.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

5.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 28^th Day of December 2011)

     MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT