West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/114/2013

Sujit Kumar Bhakat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Circle Officer, Circle Head Office, Vodafone South Limited - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.114/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 30/07/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Kapot Chattapadhya.

   

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. G. S. Bhakat, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. B. Chatterjee, Advocate.                                   

          

          Sujit Kumar Bhakat, Son of late Nityananda Bhakat, Proprietor of H.B. Housing   

          Industries Library Road, Medinipur,  Post-Medinipur, P.S.  Kotwali, Dist- Paschim

          Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. Circle Officer, Circle Head Office, Vodafone South Limited, Constantial Office Complex. 11, Dr. U,N, Brahmachari Street, Kolkata-700 017
2. The Branch Manager, Vodafone Office at Medinipur Town, Jackpaul Building, Station Road, Medinipur, Post- Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist Paschim Medinipur, Pin 721101.……………Ops.

          The case of the complainant Sri Sujit Kumar Bhakat , in short, is that the complainant and his wife Rina Bhakat are Vodafone customers under the Ops by using sim No.8145001487 and 8145001485 respectively.  It is alleged that the complainant received a call from his wife on 18.07.2013 at 13.48.28 hours while the latter had been at Dubai, UAE.  On account of the said call, the Op raised a false and concocted claim to extract money from the complainant.

           In respect of the alleged claim the complainant demanded details of incoming calls  but the Ops, in their reply, intimated to the complainant that Incoming call details are not available to them.  The complainant thereafter lodged an objection but the same yielded no favourable result.  Under the circumstances the complainant came to us with the question that since call duration is available in the caller’s mobile, why no such details relating to the call duration in the incoming sim i.e in sim No.8145001485 of the complainant who received the call.  So in absence of justification the alleged bill should be a subject of vague and unlawful claim of the Op.

            Contd…………….P/2

 

                 

- ( 2 ) -

                   In order to establish the case the complainant submitted the documentary evidence of Dynamic Credit Limit, Itemised calls. Bill dated 13.08.2013 and 16.08.2013 with letter dated 19/08/2013 of the complainant and the Ops.           

                  The Op contested the case by filling a separate application claiming for an dismissal order to this case on the ground of its non maintainability under the provisions of the 7B of Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The present allegation raised by the complainant is in relation to the dispute concerning telephone appliance or apparatus concerning the technicalities of the telephone used by the complainant and the same shall be determined by arbitration to be appointed by the Central Government.  By virtue of such legal provisions and latest decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases.  Thus the remedy claimed by the complainant is not available under Consumer Protection Act. In this connection, the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant is admitted for the purpose of disposal of this case.            

            Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from ?
2. Whether the case is barred under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for ?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that it is not a bonafide claim of the Ops that there happened a long duration of a call held between the husband and wife.  The alleged duration claimed by the Op against the call dated 18/07/2013 is based on the callers sim.  But the duration does not confirm with the report of the sim of the person who received the call.  This according to the Ld. Advocate, should not be acceptable for the purpose of the disputed claim raised by the Ops.  So the disputed bill dated 18.07.2013 should be cancelled.

              Strong challenge has been raised by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Ops claiming that this Forum is not proper authority to decide the dispute which is exclusively based on schedule technical apparatus, instrument and appliances of the Telegraph Authority.  The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is applicable in such cases like this one.  There are so many decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and even of this State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.  Thus

Contd…………….P/3

 

                                                                                                                    - ( 3 ) -

the question of billing dispute should not come before this Forum in the way of Consumer Protection Act.  Through the reply made by the Ld. Advocate for the Ops it is claimed that the petition of complaint should be dismissed.     

 

                 We have carefully considered the case of both sides in the light of their argument and documents evidence.  It is a clear case of billing dispute based on duration of call.  We find in this regard that  the Op intimated the alleged duration of call relating to the bill on the of call duration from the Telegraphic technical instruments concerning the callers sim and no separate  report is available technically on receivers sim.  If that be so,  we are in the opinion that  the question of the complainant on call duration in his sim is totally a  technical subject and this can only be solved with the help of technical function of telephone appliances or apparatus.  So, the allegation can only be considered by the appropriate authority under Indian Telegraph Act.

                 In view of the discussion made herein above, this Froum does not find its jurisdiction to decided the disputes. Thus the case is not maintainable here.

                 All the issues are disposed of in favour of the Ops .        

                              Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

             

         President                                              Member                                  President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur.