DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Miss Shivani Bisht, (Teacher), resident of House No.C-14, Imtech Housing Colony, Sector 39-A, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Bharti Airtel Limited, Registered Office : Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelsen Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-70, India

2.                 Bharti Airtel Limited, Circle Office, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh. Technology Park, Chandigarh 160101.

---Opposite Parties

3.       Idea Cellular Limited, Circle Office, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7 Mohali 160055

… Proforma opposite party.

BEFORE:  SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  None for the complainant

                        Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate and Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate, counsels for OPs No.1 & 2.

                        OP No.3 deleted.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that she subscribed to mobile No.98722-22291 of opposite party No.1.  However, from the very beginning the said number did not function properly. Later on the complainant came to know that the said number was also active on some other telephone network (Idea) in the name of one Mr. Nitin.  The complainant’s husband lodged a complaint vide email dated 2.10.2012.  However, opposite party No.1 advised her to convert the number from prepaid to postpaid.  The complainant got the same done but still it did not work out due to which neither the incoming calls were coming nor could she send the SMSs.  Her husband wrote emails in response to which opposite party No.1 persisted that the number of the complainant is in active status since 11.9.2012.  The complainant at last requested the opposite parties either to resolve the problem or to disconnect her number but they failed to do so, which not only caused her a lot of mental agony and harassment but the same also amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint. 

2.                           In their written statement opposite parties No.1 & 2,  at the outset, took preliminary objection that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Forum does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. On merits it has been averred that the services provided by the opposite parties are totally computerized and without any fault.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                           In its separate written reply opposite party No.1 averred that the number in question originally belonged to opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the same was ported out to it on 25.7.2012. It has further been averred that after porting out, the number is active in the name of Mr. Nitin r/o H.No.727/36, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh and, therefore, the bill was rightly issued.  Relying upon judgment of the Hon'ble State Commission, this opposite party also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                   Subsequently, on the statement of ld. Counsel for the complainant, the name of opposite party No.3 was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 15.5.2013. 

4.                           On 12.7.2013, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for the complainant.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the complainant. 

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has drawn our attention to the order dated 21.5.2010, passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to contend that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint.  The said order (R-I) reads as under :-

          “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.”

Even the SLP against the said order was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 1.10.2010 (R-II).

7.                           Therefore, in view of the ratio of law laid down in the above mentioned cases, we are of the opinion that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31.7.2013.

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER