DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA. CC.No.167 of 20-04-2011 Decided on 16-05-2011
Gurwinder Singh, aged about 25 years, son of Sh.Kuldeep Singh, resident of village Bhagta Bhaika, Teshil Phul, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, through its Authorized person/M.D. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Near Canara Bank, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Manager.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Maninder Pal Singh, counsel for the complainant.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President :-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased the prepaid mobile connection of Airtel bearing No.98763-57509 in the month of August 2006. At present, the complainant is having the balance of Rs.996/- and also having validity upto 2015 and at the time of getting the mobile connection recharged, the opposite parties had assured him to provide uninterrupted incoming facility upto 2015 and also outgoing facility as per the balance in the said mobile connection. On 15.04.2011, the opposite parties disconnected the outgoing facility to the said connection without giving any prior intimation to the complainant and without any prior message in this regard and since 15.04.2011, the outgoing facility to the said connection is lying disconnected. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and inquired regarding this matter but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant rather have been putting the matter off under one or the other pretext. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The preliminary hearing is given to the complainant. The record placed by the learned counsel of the complainant is perused. 3. The complainant has approached this Forum with the greivance against the opposite parties that they have disconnected the mobile connection of the complainant and debarred his mobile connection from outgoing facility. With regard to the disputes among the complainant and mobile companies, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law in case titled General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr., Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 01.09.2009 wherein it has been held that :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(d)(g) and (o) and Section 11 – Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 7B – Jurisdiction – Telephone connection of Respondent disconnected for non payment of telephone bill – Respondent filed complaint before Consumer Forum – Held, Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction – There is a special remedy in Section 7B of Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills – Thus, remedy under Consumer Protection Act is barred by implication – Special law overrides the general law – Order of Consumer Forum restoring the connection and imposing the penalty se aside.” Further, the support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Prakash Verma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr., R.P.No.1703 of 2010, wherein it has been held that :- “Fora below have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. - (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.” Our own State Commission relying upon the above cited law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has given the same view in case titled “Punjab Khaptkar Sangh Vs. Spice Communication Ltd. decided on 07.01.2011.” 4. In view of what has been discussed above, the matter regarding the tele communication services is to be decided by the arbitration. Hence, this Forum has no jurisdictoin to try and entertain the present complaint. Thus, this complaint is dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for the redressal of his greivance. 5. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 16-05-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member | 
