DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

CC No.27 of 31.1.2020

Decided on : 16-3-2023

Aseem Kumar S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar R/o # 5785, Ward No. 36, Aggarwal Street, Sirki Bazar, Bathinda.

​........Complainant

Versus

1. Bharti Airtel Limited, (A Bharti Enterprises) Bharti Crescent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase II, New Delhi-110070.

2. Bharti Airtel Limited H.O, 100ft Road, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:-

Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present:-

For the complainant : Sh. Ashok Bharti, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President:-

1. The complainant Aseem Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Bharti Airtel Limited & anoher (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant that he was using Airtel Prepaid Fancy Number i.e. 98786-98786 for about last 10 years. The above said number is registered in the name of the complainant with the opposite parties. The opposite parties disconnected the said connection/number of the complainant and sold the same to some other user without the consent of the complainant or giving any notice to him. The complainant is still using various apps connected with the above said number. The complainant was using the above said number for about more than 10 years and has given the said number to his near, dear and business concern. It is alleged that the complainant several times approached the opposite parties and requested them to restore the number of the complainant, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

3. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to restore the Number in question of the complainant and also pay him Rs. 50,000/- on account of damage and harassment and Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides litigation expenses.

4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written version raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is not entitled to any relief and that the complaint is bad on account of lack of jurisdiction.

5. It has been pleaded that Hon'ble Supreme Court in "General Manager, Telecom Vs M. Krishnan and Another" (Civil Appeal no. 7687 of 2004) observed that when there is a Special remedy provided in Section B of the Indian Telegraph Act, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is barred. Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act talks of determination by arbitration of any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus between the telegraph Authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the special law overrides the general law. Therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.

6. On merits, the opposite parties denied all the averments of the complainant. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 8.1.2020 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3).

8. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, no evidence was produced by the opposite parties despite repeated adjournments. Thus, evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

10. The learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

12. To prove his case, complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex. C-1) alongwith receipts of re-charge through Ptm (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3) and it has been claimed by the complainant that he has been using the said pre-paid fancy number 98786-98786 for the last ten years. The opposite parties have although taken a plea that the jurisdiction of this Consumer Commission is barred. However, the said plea of the opposite parties is not acceptable as the Clause of Arbitration does not bar the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission in any manner and this fact has been many time upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission through its various judgements. Consumer Law is the welfare legislation and has been enacted for the protection of the rights of the consumers and in the present case, since mobile number of the complainant was disconnected and re-allotted to some other person without any notice to complainant, it is clear cut deficiency in service and business mal-practice on the part of the opposite parties.

13. Accordingly, present complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to restore the pre-paid fancy number 98786-98786 to the complainant. Besides, above, the opposite parties are also held entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

14. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

16. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    16-3-2023                                                                                                                                        

17. (Mohan Lal Dogra)

    President

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member