DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.397 of 08-08-2011 Decided on 25-08-2011
Hardev Singh, aged about 26 years, son of Sh. Labh Singh, Resident of village Ghudda, Tehsil & District 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. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Rajdeep Goyal, counsel for the complainant. Opposite parties not summoned.
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 up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased the mobile connection bearing No.98785-49031 from the opposite parties and had been using the said mobile connection for the last 4-5 years in his name. The said connection is pre-paid connection with life time validity and the complainant has been getting the same recharged as per his necessity. On 16.07.2011, the opposite parties disconnected the mobile connection of the complainant without giving any prior intimation and message to the complainant. The complainant is having sufficient balance of Rs.60/- in his mobile number. After disconnection of connection of the complainant, he visited the office of the opposite party No.2 on 16.07.2011 and enquired about the disconnection of the said mobile connection but the opposite parties did not give any satisfactory reply. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to restore the said mobile connection and prayed for compensation of Rs.75,000/- alongwith cost of litigation expenses. 2. Preliminary hearing is given to the complaint. Record placed on file by the complainant perused. 3. The matter involved in the present complaint is with regard to the mobile connection of the complainant. He has taken the mobile connection from the opposite parties which was disconnected by the opposite parties without giving any prior intimation or message to the complainant. As per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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, 1985, Section 7B – Jurisdiction – Telephone connection of Respondent disconnected for nonpayment 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 set aside.” “S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes:- Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-s. (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court.
Further, the reliance can be put on by the law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Prakash Verma Vs IDEA Cellular Ltd. & Anr., Revision Petition No.1703 of 2010, decided on 21 May, 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.” The same findings has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Prakash Verma Vs IDEA Cellular Ltd. & Anr., Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24577/2010 (From the judgment and order dated 21/05/2010 in RP No.1703/2010. 4. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, the complaint of the complainant does not fall under the ambit of jurisdiction of Consumer Fora as there is a special remedy provided under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Thus, this complaint is dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/court/forum for the redressal of his grievance. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced 25.08.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
