DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.70 of 19-02-2013

Decided on 05-03-2013

Jagtar Singh, aged about 27 years s/o Labh Singh s/o Gurbax Singh r/o Vill.Ganga, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-70, India, through its M.D.

2.Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, through its authorized representative.

3.G.G Telecom, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Branch Office, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Auth.Rep.

.......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.Ravi Kant Bhardwaj, counsel for complainant.

For Opposite parties: Not Summoned.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased the mobile connection bearing No.98768-74044, having Sim bearing No.8991020411153121329 of the opposite parties and has been using the same for the last about 6/7 years and has also been getting the said connection recharged as per his convenience and requirement. In the month of July, 2012 the opposite parties without prior notice to the complainant, disconnected the said connection. The complainant repeatedly visited the office of the opposite party No.3 and requested it to restore the said connection but to no effect. The opposite parties asked the complainant to furnish the documents regarding his identity and residence proof etc. although he had obtained the said connection after furnishing the requisite formalities including I.D proof etc. and there was no requirement to furnish the fresh I.D. and any other document but still he furnished the requisite documents in the office of the opposite party No.3 on 4.8.2012 and he was assured to restore the said connection within 24 hours but the opposite parties did not restore the same therefore in the last week of August, 2012 he again furnished the documents in the office of the opposite party No.3 but till date the said connection has not been restored by them rather the same is still lying disconnected without any cogent reason. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to restore the said connection alongwith cost and compensation.

2. Preliminary hearing is given to the complainant and file perused.

3. The matter in dispute in the present case is regarding the restoration of the mobile connection that has been sought by the complainant and he has been using the same for the last about 6/7 years. In the month of July, 2012 the opposite parties disconnected the said connection but it has not been restored till date by them. As the dispute is regarding the mobile connection, hence the support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled General Manger, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr., 2009(III) CPJ 71 (SC) wherein it has been held that:-

“In our opinion 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 well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach.”

Further, the support can also be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Prakash Verma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr., R.P.No.1703 of 2010, wherein it has been held:-

“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 Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh, relying upon the above cited law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has given the same view in case titled “Punjab Khaptkar Sangh Vs. Spice Communication Ltd. decided on 07.01.2011.

4. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is not maintainable, hence dismissed in limini, but it is made clear before parting with this order that the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/Forum/Court of the competent jurisdiction for the redressal of his grievances, if so advised and permitted by law . Hence this complaint is dismissed in limini. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

5. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

5-03-2013 Vikramjit Kaur Soni

President

Amarjeet Paul

Member

Sukhwinder Kaur

Member