<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that she had been a customer of Airtel India since 1996-97. On 13-8-2009 she has purchased 6 numbers Airtel World calling card worth Rs.500/- each. On 25-9-2009 she received bill and noted several discrepancies in the bill. The opposite party demanded Rs.23,000/- over and above the amount already paid, the complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- immediately and called customers relations number for clarification. On 9th March 2010 the complainant received notice from District Legal Service Authority, Bangalore as Pre-Litigation Notice. It is atrocious on the part of the Airtel to bill additional amounts. The complainant submits that, she has right to seek clarification. The complainant seeks compensation Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party for the termination of services without any notice.<br /> <br /> The advocate for the opposite party files memo stating that since dispute under reference is between a subscriber and a telegraph authority, the same is not maintainable before this Forum in view of verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported AIR 2010 SC-90 in General Manager Telecom Vs M.Krishnan and another. In view of Sec 7(b) of Indian Telegraph act 1885 the remedy open for the complainant is to approach the arbitrator as contemplated under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, therefore, the op prayed to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The opposite party has also produced judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore decided in appeal no.226/2009 dted 27-10-2009 between Mr. Saneesh Mathew vs Bharati Airtel Ltd., Bangalore in that Judgment also relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal of the complainant was dismissed holding that there is a special remedy provided in sec 7(b) of Indian telegraph Act, regarding disputes in respect of Telephone bills, the remedy under the consumer protection Act is by implication barred. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also our own State Commission referred to above the present complaint is not maintainable before this Fora. Therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed on maintainability point itself. Hence, the complaint is dismissed, with a liberty to the complainant to approach to the appropriate authority for the redressal of the grievances. <br /> <br /> Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br />