IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST SINGHBHUM AT CHAIBASA
Present: - 1. Sri Vijai Kumar Sharma, President,
2. Sri Rajiv Kumar, Member,
3. Smt. Deoshree Choudhary, Member.
C. C. Case No. 31/2014
Chaibasa, Dated: 12.08.2022
Prabhat Kumar Sahu,Son of Ramdash Sahu resident of Mohalla Gandhitola, P.O. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand ……………………..…....Complainant
Vs.
Director for Reliance Communication Mumbai……………………..…Opposite Party
Advocate for Complainant……………Sri S.K Gupta, Advocate
Advocate for Opposite Party…………Sri Soumen Nandi, Advocate
Judgment
This case has been filed by the complainant Prabhat Kumar Sahu resident of Mohalla Gandhitola, P.O. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand against Director for Reliance Communication Mumbai for an award of Rs.2000.00 only showing deficiency in service by O.P
Briefly stated case of the complainant Prabhat Kumar Sahu resident of Mohalla Gandhitola, P.O. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand is that he is customer of O.P. by taking coin box telephone connection bearing No.9304799674 but company is not recharging the above connection since last three months, for this he has also invoked provision of Right to Information.Act but in vain. Further that due to not recharging above connection No.9304799674 by the O.P., complainant is suffering daily economic loss and also he is suffering physical and mental harassment and prayer has been made for appropriate step and also passing an award for Rs.2000.00 and other relief if any.
After admission notice was issued to O.P. who has appeared in this case and written statement has been filed with intention to contest the case. Further written statement reveals that legal as well the grounds of facts has been taken by the O.P. As a legal ground it has been stated that case of the complainant is not maintainable as it suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary party and also regarding territorial jurisdiction of the court as this court has not power to try the case, because the complaint is beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act as case of the complainant is related with the Telegraph Act 1885 and Telecom Regulatory Authority to 1997. So, case should have been filed before the proper forum having competent jurisdiction to try the case. Further that complainant has misled court which should be dismissed for no cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction. As natures of the complainant’s case shows that jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the telecom dispute settlement and appellate tribunal constituted under TRAI Act of 1997 and accordingly prayer has been made to dismiss the case with exemplary cost.
In support of the case complainant has furnished his affidavited evidence and affidavited evidence of an Anwar Raja as witness. On the other hand Sri Indrajit Mukhopadhay has filed his affidavited evidence in support of show-cause.
Evidence adduced on behalf of the parties will be basis for finding in this case.
FINDING
Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has filed instant case against O.P. Reliance Communication Ltd., B. Block, 2nd Floor, Building No. 05,Dhirubhai Ambani , Noida City, New Bumbai-400710 for an award of Rs.50000.00 including compensation towards mental and physical harassment because complainant has purchased one telephone coin box bearing Phone No.9304799674 from a sub-dealer of O.P. situated at Masjid Gali Sadar Bazar Chaibasa and same telephone was purchased by the complainant almost seven years before filing of the case and the above telephone coin box was installed in the cloth shop of Sadar Bazar Chaibasa and said telephone coin box was used for commercial purpose only and telephone connection was given in the name of complainant. Further that above telephone coin box became non-functional due to negligence and deficiency of service by the O.P. and complainant has been deprived of service of telephone coin box since one year from the date of filing of this case and due to such negligence of O.P. complainant has incurred huge economic, mental and physical loss, for which complainant has filed instant case and complainant is entitled for required relief from the O.P.
On the other hand learned counsel for the O.P. has argued that case of the complainant is false, frivolous, vexatious and non-maintainable in the eye of law. Further that this case has been filed without jurisdiction and gross abuse of process by the complaint. Further that complainant has suppressed the basis merit of facts relating to instant proceeding and complainant has not come with clean hand. Further that no cause of action has arisen in this case. As a matter of fact this case is related with the provision of Telegraph Act 1885 and Telecom Regulatory Authority of 1997. Further that this Act relating to telephone are special Act and as per the settled proposition of law special Act prevails over the general law. So case is also not maintainable as section 7(b) of the Telegraph Act is special provision regarding disputes in telephone bills etc. remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Further that complainant has not produced any single chit of paper in support of the security money as well as balance money kept with the O.P. Further that answering of O.P. has wrongly been made party in this case as a matter of fact Reliance Communication Ltd. deptt. which runs mobile service only should have been made party in this case, which is necessary party to this dispute. So complaint case liable to be dismiss in this ground of non-joinder of necessary party. In support of the contention learned counsel has relied upon the decision in show-cause which have been reported in 1995 (1) CPJ-61-NC and also section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory of India Act 1997.
After hearing argument of both sides and perusal of the case record we find that complainant has given his affidavited evidence along with affidavited evidence of Anwar Raja who has supported complaint case in their affidavited evidence. Further it is worthy to mention that witness Anwar Raja is none other than sub dealer of O.P. and he had installed coin box telephone in the cloth shop of complainant and further he has stated that telephone coin box was used for commercial purpose. After recharging the same from the sub dealer and other authorized dealer of O.P. but P.W2 has not mentioned anything about the deposit of security money or any balance amount for Rs.13000.00 which have been kept by the O.P. So claim of the complainant is that O.P. has misappropriated his Rs.2000.00 + Rs.13000.00 has neither been corroborated in affidavited evidence nor substinted through documentary evidence. Further as per the ruling given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the General Manager Telecom Vrs. M. Krishnan & others we find that dispute regarding telephone bills or security etc. can only be settled under the provision of section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act and remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by- implication barred. So, on the basis of above discussion and finding and also keeping in view the settled proposition of law as discussed above we are of the considered opinion that complainant is not entitled for any relief in this case due to non-joinder of necessary party as well as provision of section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act rather case of the complainant is worthy for dismissal.
Accordingly it is therefore.
ORDER
That case of the complainant is hereby dismissed on contest but without cost. Let copy of this judgment be furnished to both parties free of cost for their information.
(Rajiv Kumar) (Deoshree Choudhary) (Vijai Kumar Sharma)
Member Member President
