BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.127/14.
Date of instt.: 18.06.2014.
Date of Decision: 10.07.2015.
Dinesh Tyagi son of Sh. Satyavir Singh Tyagi, R/o 383/20, Vikas Nagar, Opp. Padma City Mall, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Airtel Registered Office-Bharti Crescent, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director/Chairman.
2. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Circle Office: 85, Durand Road, Ambala Cantt., Haryana-133001 through its Circle Manager.
3. M/s. Airtel Sales ID-21544, S.P.Singh, Shubham Telecom, Kothi Gate, near Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Kaithal-136027 (Haryana) through its Prop. S.P.Singh.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Pushpinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
Op No.3 already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is having post-paid mobile connection of Ops vide number 9017607600 and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that whenever the complainant used to pay mobile bill to the Op No.3, the complainant demanded receipts for the same, but the Op No.3 was annoyed with this practice. It is further alleged that the Op No.3 each and every month received bill amount against printed receipts but not deposited the same further with the Ops No.1 and 2. It is further alleged that the complainant never delayed the payment of bill and bills paid before due date in time to Op No.3. It is further alleged that the complainant always received SMS on his mobile that his bill not deposited although the bills already deposited in time. It is further alleged that each and every time, the penalty of delayed payment imposed in the next bill for late payment of previous bill, without any fault of complainant. It is further alleged that the Ops stopped paper bill service of complainant without any prior intimation and record and when the complainant made complaint, then they asked to take option of stopping paper bill and to avail service of bills through e-mail. The complainant has challenged the e-bill dt. 21.05.2014 for sum of Rs.627.31/- which includes penalty of last bill period late fee of Rs.100/-. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.08.2014. Ops No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint in lieu of observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another” (Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004). There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties led their evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is having post-paid mobile connection of Ops vide number 9017607600 and has been paying the bills regularly. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that whenever the complainant used to pay mobile bill to the Op No.3, the complainant demanded receipts for the same, but the Op No.3 did not pay the same to the complainant. He further contends that the Op No.3 every month received bill amount against printed receipts but not deposited the same further with the Ops No.1 and 2. The complainant never delayed the payment of bill and bills paid before due date in time to Op No.3. The complainant always received SMS on his mobile that his bill not deposited although the bills already deposited in time. Ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that the penalty of delayed payment was imposed in the next bill for late payment of previous bill, without any fault of complainant. The Ops stopped paper bill service of complainant without any prior intimation and record and when the complainant made complaint, then they asked to take option of stopping paper bill and to avail service of bills through e-mail. The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and all the bills, receipts and other documents Ex.C1 to C28. On the other hand, the Ops No.1 and 2 only tendered the affidavit, Ex.RA and copy of statement of account, Ex.RB. Whereas, Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte.
7. Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 vehemently contends that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint in lieu of observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another” (Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004). To rebut the contentions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2, ld. Counsel for the complainant has referred the Consumer Section and the letter dt. 07.03.2014 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs (Consumer Protection Unit) mentioned in the authority 2014(2) CLT page 6, whereby it has been added that the Department of Telecommunications vide their letter No.2-17/2013-Policy-I dated 24th January, 2014 has informed that the District Fora are competent to entertain consumer disputes involving telecom service providers and consumers. In the Consumer Section, it is mentioned as under:-
CONSUMER FORUMS COMPETENT TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES BETWEEN CONSUMERS AND TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS
Ultimately, jurisdiction conferred to District Consumer Forums to entertain and adjudicate the disputes between consumers and telecom service providers including BSNL and other private players. These instructions circulated and now there is no ambiguity in the matter. Even then we have published a latest and landmark judgment of Hon’ble State Commission Meghalaya at page 170 of CLT 2014(2) which is a landmark judgment delivered before issuing these letters/instructions and may be useful in the context.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed reliance upon the authority reported as BSNL, Shillong & Gen. Manager, GMTD Vs. Saumitra Nath, 2014(2) CLT page 170 decided by Hon’ble Meghalaya State Commission, Shillong, wherein it has been mentioned that (a) Consumer Fora have the fullest jurisdiction to entertain disputes between BSNL and/or other similar service providers/licensees and consumers of telecom/telegraph services in India. (b) Section 7B of the Telegraph Act cannot, by any stretch of imagination, apply to disputes relating to cell phones which fall outside its purview completely and therefore, in any view of the matter, the Consumer Fora have unfettered jurisdiction over such disputes. The said authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant are fully applicable to the present case. So, in view of said authorities, we find that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. So, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.15,000/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.10.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.127/14.
Date of instt.: 18.06.2014.
Date of Decision: 10.07.2015.
Dinesh Tyagi son of Sh. Satyavir Singh Tyagi, R/o 383/20, Vikas Nagar, Opp. Padma City Mall, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Airtel Registered Office-Bharti Crescent, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director/Chairman.
2. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Circle Office: 85, Durand Road, Ambala Cantt., Haryana-133001 through its Circle Manager.
3. M/s. Airtel Sales ID-21544, S.P.Singh, Shubham Telecom, Kothi Gate, near Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Kaithal-136027 (Haryana) through its Prop. S.P.Singh.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Pushpinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
Op No.3 already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is having post-paid mobile connection of Ops vide number 9017607600 and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that whenever the complainant used to pay mobile bill to the Op No.3, the complainant demanded receipts for the same, but the Op No.3 was annoyed with this practice. It is further alleged that the Op No.3 each and every month received bill amount against printed receipts but not deposited the same further with the Ops No.1 and 2. It is further alleged that the complainant never delayed the payment of bill and bills paid before due date in time to Op No.3. It is further alleged that the complainant always received SMS on his mobile that his bill not deposited although the bills already deposited in time. It is further alleged that each and every time, the penalty of delayed payment imposed in the next bill for late payment of previous bill, without any fault of complainant. It is further alleged that the Ops stopped paper bill service of complainant without any prior intimation and record and when the complainant made complaint, then they asked to take option of stopping paper bill and to avail service of bills through e-mail. The complainant has challenged the e-bill dt. 21.05.2014 for sum of Rs.627.31/- which includes penalty of last bill period late fee of Rs.100/-. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.08.2014. Ops No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint in lieu of observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another” (Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004). There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties led their evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is having post-paid mobile connection of Ops vide number 9017607600 and has been paying the bills regularly. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that whenever the complainant used to pay mobile bill to the Op No.3, the complainant demanded receipts for the same, but the Op No.3 did not pay the same to the complainant. He further contends that the Op No.3 every month received bill amount against printed receipts but not deposited the same further with the Ops No.1 and 2. The complainant never delayed the payment of bill and bills paid before due date in time to Op No.3. The complainant always received SMS on his mobile that his bill not deposited although the bills already deposited in time. Ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that the penalty of delayed payment was imposed in the next bill for late payment of previous bill, without any fault of complainant. The Ops stopped paper bill service of complainant without any prior intimation and record and when the complainant made complaint, then they asked to take option of stopping paper bill and to avail service of bills through e-mail. The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and all the bills, receipts and other documents Ex.C1 to C28. On the other hand, the Ops No.1 and 2 only tendered the affidavit, Ex.RA and copy of statement of account, Ex.RB. Whereas, Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte.
7. Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 vehemently contends that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint in lieu of observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another” (Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004). To rebut the contentions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2, ld. Counsel for the complainant has referred the Consumer Section and the letter dt. 07.03.2014 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs (Consumer Protection Unit) mentioned in the authority 2014(2) CLT page 6, whereby it has been added that the Department of Telecommunications vide their letter No.2-17/2013-Policy-I dated 24th January, 2014 has informed that the District Fora are competent to entertain consumer disputes involving telecom service providers and consumers. In the Consumer Section, it is mentioned as under:-
CONSUMER FORUMS COMPETENT TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES BETWEEN CONSUMERS AND TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS
Ultimately, jurisdiction conferred to District Consumer Forums to entertain and adjudicate the disputes between consumers and telecom service providers including BSNL and other private players. These instructions circulated and now there is no ambiguity in the matter. Even then we have published a latest and landmark judgment of Hon’ble State Commission Meghalaya at page 170 of CLT 2014(2) which is a landmark judgment delivered before issuing these letters/instructions and may be useful in the context.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed reliance upon the authority reported as BSNL, Shillong & Gen. Manager, GMTD Vs. Saumitra Nath, 2014(2) CLT page 170 decided by Hon’ble Meghalaya State Commission, Shillong, wherein it has been mentioned that (a) Consumer Fora have the fullest jurisdiction to entertain disputes between BSNL and/or other similar service providers/licensees and consumers of telecom/telegraph services in India. (b) Section 7B of the Telegraph Act cannot, by any stretch of imagination, apply to disputes relating to cell phones which fall outside its purview completely and therefore, in any view of the matter, the Consumer Fora have unfettered jurisdiction over such disputes. The said authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant are fully applicable to the present case. So, in view of said authorities, we find that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. So, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.15,000/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.10.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
