Delhi

New Delhi

CC/200/2017

Sudhanshu Shekhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

23 May 2017

ORDER

                                       CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                       (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                             NEW DELHI-110001

      

 

Case No.C.C. 200/2017                            Dated:

 

In the matter of:

Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar

S/o Shri Sanjeev Sharan,

R/o chamber No. 255,

Block- I, Delhi High Court

New Delhi                                                 ……..COMPLAINANT

 

      

VERSUS

 

1. Bharti Airtel Limited,

Bharti Crescent,1,

Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, Phase II,

New Delhi-110070

Through-Concerned AR

 

2. Mr. Sunil  Mittal (Chairman)

Bharti Crescent,1,

Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, Phase II,

New Delhi-110070

 

3. Mr. Gopal Vittal (MD & CEO)

Bharti Crescent,1,

Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, Phase II,

New Delhi-110070                                ...OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

PRESIDENT- S.K. SARVARIA

 

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against Bharti Airtel Ltd. alleging the arbitrary raising of bill by OP, suspending the connection and non restoration of services by OP, despite receiving the raised bill amount by OP.

Counsel for complainant has relied upon the circular dated 30/01/2014 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication and IT Department of Tele Communication and circular dated 07/03/2014 issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department of Consumer Affairs.

We have heard arguments in advanced at the bar and have persued the record.

In General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan , : 2009(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 8 : 2009(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 500  : 2009(8) SCC 481 : 2010 AIR (SC) 90 relied upon by learned counsel for the OP the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:

          

           "6-7. 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. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under :-

           "S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes :-

           (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section.

           (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court."

           Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules.

           8. 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.

9. In Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, (1995)2 SCC 479 it was held that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment."

 

 

Section 4 of the Act gives exclusive privileged to the Central government in respect of Telegraphs, the power to grant licences within India. Section 3 (1AA) defines, in short, the word "Telegraph" as given below:

“ telegraph” means any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire,  visual or other electro-magnetic emissions, Radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or  magnetic  means”.

Complainant has file the present complain against Bharti Airtel Ltd. alleging the arbitrary raising of bill by OP, suspending the connection and non restoration of services by OP despite receiving the raised bill amount by OP, which comes within the definition of Telegraph.

The term "Telegraph Authority" as defined in Section 3 (6) mean the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs, and includes any officer empowered by him to perform all or any of the functions of the Telegraph authority under this Act. Therefore, the word "Telegraph authority" includes the officers empowered by Director-General of post and Telegraph also. The "Telegraph officer" is defined in Section 3 (2) of the Act, and includes the person employed temporarily or permanently in connection with Telegraph established, maintained or worked by the Central government or by a person licensed under this Act. Therefore, by virtue of this definition of Telegraph officer a person employed permanently or temporarily with licensed person under the Act is also a Telegraph officer. So, by implication, the licensed service providers like the OP would come within the definition of "Telegraph authority" and the provisions of Section 7B of the Act are applicable between the disputes of said service provider and the person claiming deficiency in service against him, with regard to Telegraph lines or Telegraph, dues, etc.

M. Krishnan's case was followed in another case titled Jayaprakash, Panjeta versus Vodafone ESSAR South Ltd and another in the Revision Petition No. 2365/2011 decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 30/4/2014 and it was held that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court was binding and the Revision Petition filed was dismissed. In Lokesh Parashar versus M/S, Idea Cellular Ltd the Revision Petition number 3780 of 2011 decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New  Delhi  on  20/4/2012, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, while dismissing the revision petition, following M. Krishnan's case (supra), has also indicated that in another case of Parkash Verma versus Idea cellular Ltd and another the Revision Petition number 1703 of 2010 was dismissed by it on 21/5/2010 and the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner before the Apex Court was dismissed on 1/10/2010 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, M. Krishnan's case (supra), is consistently being followed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and we are bound to obey the directions and the observations in these cases and so are compelled to hold that the present complaint is hit by Section 7B of the Telegraph  Act.

 

Much reliance is placed by the complainant upon the circular dated 30/01/2014 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication and IT Department of Tele Communication and circular dated 07/03/2014 issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department of Consumer Affairs, but in our view these circular issued by the concerned Department of Govt. of India cannot over ride the view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Krishanan case (Supra) which is consistently being followed by Hon’ble Nation Commission. The law interpreted by Hon’ble Supreme Court can be reviewed by Hon’ble Supreme Court itself and not by Departmental Circular. Therefore, the two circular dated 30/01/2014  and 07/03/2014 do not help complainant.

 

In view of the above, the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP is rejected for want of jurisdiction of this Forum in the light of M. Krishnan case (supra). One true copy each of this order be sent to the concerned parties by post.

 

This order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). 

 

The file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

Order Pronounced on  23/05/2017 .

 

 

                                     (S K SARVARIA)

                                          PRESIDENT

 

                                                    (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                  (H M VYAS)

                                                            MEMBER                                               MEMBER