COMPLAINT FILED ON:21.06.2011
DISPOSED ON:06.02.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
6th DAY OF FEBRUARY-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1132/2011
ComplainaNT | Prasanna V Nadgir Flat No.F1, Yoga Apartment, No.47, EAT Street, Basavanagudi, Nr. Nettakallappa Circle, Bangalore-4. In person. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Bharti Airtel Ltd, No.11/1 & 12/1, West ‘A’ Wing, Maruthi InfoTech Centre, Amarjyothi Layout, Domlur, Bangalore-560 071. (Adv:Sri.B.J.Mahesh |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant in person filed this complaint seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to refund the amount deposited for the Airtel connection taken and to penalize OP to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-
They were availing the services of OP since 2006 for the Nos.41512485/41502486. They made payment of Rs.3,699/- towards the No’s 41512485/41469249/41502486 at saroj communications (Airtel outlet) Jayanagar III Block, Bangalore on 28th June. Rs.226/- was adjusted towards phone No.41502486 and the rest was not adjusted to the other Nos. On 7th July the complainant received an SMS stating that Rs.3,473/- has been received. One of representative by name Chetan called the complainant asking for details for adjusting this payment. The complainant clearly communicated to adjust for 41469249 and for 41512485. The complainant assumed that the payment was adjusted; however the representatives of the OP kept on calling the complainant for the payments. The telephones got blocked. When the complainant spoke with one of airtel Manager, he conveyed that Rs.2,673/- has been adjusted to 41512485 but that was the old account of the complainant. The complainant had the same number earlier. But that got canceled because of some billing related issues for which a legal notice was sent and also Court notice. The complainant attended in court and proved OP is wrong. The court has instructed OP to close that issue which OP did not. The complainant has nothing to do with that. Despite disconnecting the phone airtel has generated the bills. It is not fair to generate the bills when OP disconnects the line. The complainant escalated this matter to appellate southabts@airtel.in on 08.08.2010. On 12.08.2010 they have adjusted the amount to the complainant’s Nos. However this was not a complete solution since they have generated the bills when service was disconnected. On 16th Aug 2010 the complainant conveyed the same to OP and asked to zero the account. When they did not, according to them the total amount was Rs.1221/-. Subsequently, they sent a legal notice and asked to appear before Lok Adalath on 21st January 2011. On 17th January 2011 the complainant conveyed that amount is not payable by and requested to take back the notice. On 29th January OP have credited themselves Rs.917.7/-. If this would have happened during the first interaction the complainant would not have arrived at this situation. The complainant attended the Lok Adalath and conveyed the same. The Lok Adalath asked OP to look into the matter. After the complainant conveyed to OP of his intention of moving the matter to Consumer Court, they have cleared the account and they have not refunded the deposit amount saying that they have adjusted in the complainant’s account which is not correct since service was disconnected.
3. On appearance OP filed version mainly contenting that the present dispute raised by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 dt.01.09.2009 in the matter between General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan & another reported in 2009 AIR SCW-5631. As per the said judgment, the dispute raised by the complainant is between the Subscriber and Telecom Service Provider, remedy available for the complainant is Under Section.7-B the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of the dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act, on this ground itself the present complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
4. In view of the defence taken by OP with regard to the maintainability of the complaint, arguments were heard on both sides.
5. Both parties filed affidavit evidence.
6. Point for consideration is:
Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum.
7. We record our findings in the negative for the following:
R E A S O N S
8.The dispute raised by the complainant is with regard to the billing of the connections provided by OP-Bharathi Airtel and non-refunding of the deposit amount, on the ground that the same has been adjusted towards the arrears of the bill for the telephone connections. In 2009 CTJ 1062(SC)(CP) General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints in respect of any dispute between the subscriber and the Telecom Authority regarding billing of the telephone connections and other matters, as all such matters are covered Under Section.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator appointed. In 2011 CTJ 320 (CP)(SCDRC) Tata Tele Services Ltd V/s J.G.Kannappan (Dr.) the dispute was regarding the service bill issued by Tata Tele Services Limited with regard to mobile phone service along with this instrument. The bills were issued subsequently after disconnecting the service. The bills were issued towards monthly rent it was held that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another – Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act to apply to the dispute-Special Act to overcome the General Act viz, the Consumer Protection Act-hence the impugned order passed by the District Forum were set aside holding that the same is being without jurisdiction. In 2011 CTJ 358 CP(SCDRC) Arun Kumar Kaushal V/s Bharti Airtel Ltd and others where the dispute was raised by the complainant regarding the phone bill. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. In Appeal preferred it was held that the Telecommunication company governed by the Acts of 1895- 1933- as held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another, the Forums created under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. In 2011 CTJ 210(CP) (SCDRC) Bharati Airtel Limited and another V/s Karan Singh Pannu and others wherein the complainant was the Consumer mobile phone services provided by the Bharathi Airtel. His outgoing service barred without any intimation. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded compensation. In the appeal it was held that in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another when there is a special remedy provided in Section.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding the telephone billing disputes then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. The Appeal was accepted dismissing the complaint.
In view of the principles laid down in the above rulings, we are of the view that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant is at liberty to avail the opportunity, under Section.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding the grievance. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable. Considering the nature of dispute there is no order as to costs.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 6th day of February– 2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
