DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Malvinder Singh, Quite No.3, Ground Floor, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

Bharti Airtel Limited, Circular Office, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Managing Director.

……Opposite Party

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

ARGUED BY: Sh.Rakesh Kaundal, Counsel for complainant.

                      Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Malvinder Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Bharti Airtel Limited - Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he is the consumer and the subscriber of the OP and has been using the mobile sim cards having mobile No.98157-12345 postpaid, since the year 2007. It has been alleged that on 1.8.2011 the OP has illegally and unlawfully, without giving any kind of intimation to the complainant, suddenly stopped the facilities of the said mobile number of the complainant. Neither any outgoing call is made nor any incoming call is being received by the complainant since 1.8.2011. It has been contended that on persistent requests of the complainant, the OP informed him that some arrears were due against him, though no such arrears were due against him and he has been paying the bills regularly to the OP. The complainant has alleged that the act of the OP by blocking his connection amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OP to restore/start the outgoing facility on his mobile number and to make payment of compensation and litigation costs.

2.                In its written reply, OP has pleaded that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and determine the complaint in view of the latest Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in case titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. It has been stated that the complainant never paid his monthly bills in time. Previously also his number was suspended on account of non payment of dues. It has been stated that the number of the complainant was disconnected for want of dues and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                After going through the evidence on record and hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint.

5.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 on 1.9.2009 observed 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 No.1703 of 2010 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 to Appeal (Civil) No.27577 of 2010 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.

6.                The learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to private service providers. However, there is no force in this contention. 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.

7.                For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that the dispute between the parties cannot be decided by this Forum because of special remedy of arbitration provided under the Indian Telegraph Act.

8.                Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed holding that the dispute between the complainant and the OPs can be resolved by taking recourse to the arbitration proceedings.

9.                The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.