DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Gurnaaz Kaur d/o Sh.Gurdev Singh, r/o # 3403, Sector 27-D, IInd Floor, Chandigarh – 160019.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Bharti Airtel Ltd., through its Chief Executive Officer, Bharti Cresent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070.

2.       Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh – 160101.

3.       Appellate Officer/Authority, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh – 160101.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Salil Sabhlok, Counsel for the complainant.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Ms.Gurnaaz Kaur, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), on the allegations that she has been using a prepaid mobile connection No.9876455009 issued by the OP company for more than 7 years. It has been contended that since almost a year or even more there have been deductions of money from the said prepaid account without any service being used by the complainant on account of usage of General Packet Radio Service (GPRS). The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OP to give the details of GPRS deductions made from the mobile number and to refund the amount and to make payment of interest @ 18% p.a. compounded monthly on the said amount, apart from making payment of compensation and litigation expenses.

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 and followed by the Hon’ble National Commission at the time of admission of the complaint for hearing.

3.                The learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that dispute in the present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 because the OP is not a telegraph authority. He has 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. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on Spice Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurinder Kaur and another passed in First Appeal No.1172 of 2009 on 22.9.2010, J.K.Mittal Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C)8285/2010 & C.M.No.21319/2010 on 6.2.2012 and Mrs. Tarun Gupta Vs. Bharti Airtel Limited passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in Appeal case No.176 of 2011 on 21.11.2011.

4.                We have carefully considered the above arguments but we are not impressed with the same. In this case, the complainant has specifically alleged that the OP has made deductions on account of usage of GPRS, though she did not subscribe the said service and has made a prayer for refund of the amount recovered by the OP along with interest.  It is significant to note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 on 1.9.2009 found 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.  It is pertinent to note that one Prakash Verma filed a consumer complaint against Idea Cellular Limited which was dismissed by the Forum while relying upon the judgment of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and another. Then Mr.Prakash Verma filed a revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble National Commission passed the following order on 21.5.2010 :-

“Fora below have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another – (2009) 8 SCC 481 wherein it has been held that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.

          The judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all the subordinate courts. There is no scope for interference. Dismissed.”

It is also worth nothing that thereafter Prakash Verma filed a Special Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1.10.2010 dismissed that Special Leave Petition. In this view of the matter, any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.

5.                As far as the question whether the OP is a telegraph authority or not, it is significant that the above said Prakash Verma had also filed a consumer complaint against Idea Cellular Limited which is also a private service provider. So far as the ruling Spice Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurinder Kaur and another (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the complainant is concerned, it is true that earlier Hon’ble State Commission of Punjab took this view that the private service providers cannot avail the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Krishnan & Another’s case (supra). However, in a latest judgment Hon’ble State Commission of Punjab in Punjab Khapatkar Sangh (regd.) Vs. Spice Communication Limited, 2011 CTJ 574 (SP) (SCDRC) has held that the controversy that the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and another applies only to the landline telephones comes to an end and the law stands settled that the Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint concerning the telephones, whether landlines or mobile.

6.                So far as the ruling J.K.Mittal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) relating to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is concerned, the same cannot be followed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7.                In regard to the ruling Mrs. Tarun Gupta Vs. Bharti Airtel Limited (supra) of the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, a perusal of the said judgment shows that it relates to a consumer complaint in respect of the bills sent by the Bharti Airtel Limited, despite the fact that the complainant sent a registered notice for disconnection of her connection. Thus, the said judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.

8.                We are of the considered opinion that in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble State Commission of Punjab based on the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.

9.                For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed holding that the dispute between the complainant and the OPs can be resolved by taking recourse to the arbitration proceedings.

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