PRESENT

                   Complainant absent No. 1 Absent.

                   Opponent No.1 by Adv. Shri. Sachin Raje present.

                    Opponent No. 2 Ex-parte.

                                                ORDER

(Per-Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President

1.     The Complainant is a subscriber of mobile Telephone No.9594229250, 9594229226 & 9594135337 of the opponent.  The Opposite party disconnected services to the mobile Telephone number 9594229250 with effect of 17.45 hrs on 28.12.2010 till 03.02.2011.

2.   According to Complainant, opposite party without authority of law forfeited Rs. 53.50 standing to credit as on 28.12.2010 and failed to render proper services as per law.

3.       The Complainant alleged that opp. disconnected service to the mobile number 9594229226 with effect from 10.06.2011. He stated that opponent disconnected services of mobile number 9594135337 with effect from 03.05.2011 illegally.

4.       The complainant quoted instances of deficient service by opposite parties and alleged that he was subjected to monetary loss as well as mental agony due to deficiency in service.

5.       The Complainant prayed for direction to opposite party to refund the alleged charges and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Two lakh ten thousand) towards deficiency in service, Rs.1,85,000(Rupees One lakh Eighty Five Thousand )for loss of professional practice and  Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) for mental agony.

6.       The Opponent filed say and denied all the allegation made in the complaint. It is stated that the remedy under consumer protection Act is barred in view of remedy under section 7 B of India Telegraph Act.

7.       The Opponent submitted that consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant approached wrong forum, with the malafide  intention of extracting money from opponent.

8.       The opponent alleged that complainant is not the consumer and the relief claimed is covered by section 42 of specific relief Act. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed with heavy compensatory  cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac)

9.       The Opponent stated, that claim of complainant is not based on actual loss. It is submitted that company has no authority to activate or deactivate any number of customer for any reason without following the guidelines of TRAI.

10.     We have perused complaint, written statement, affidavit of evidence and all the documents produced on record.

11.     The opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint as complainant remained absent since long. The said application was rejected on 3.3.2016 and opponent was directed to make legal submission on merit of a case.

12.     The matter was adjourned for argument as the complainant was absent. The matter was adjourned for final argument on 3.8.2016. The matter was again adjourned due to absence of complainant and fixed to 25.11.2016. The opponent was allowed to make argument as complainant was absent on 14.3.2017.

13.     The learned Adv. Sachin Raje submitted that as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in a case…

          “General Manager Telecom vs. M. Krishnan

                   (2009) (0) AIJEL-SC 44307”

stating that 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 Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.

14.     Ld. Adv. Sachin Raje stated that as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court stating that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph rules. He relied on Para 7 of the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court Stating that it is well settled that the special law overrides the general law.

15.     We have perused the reliefs claimed namely refund of sums standing to the credit of complainant prior to disconnection, refund of sum illegally collected at the time of restoration of mobile services.

16.     We are of view that as the issue pertains to bills as per prayers 1 to 3 and subsequent claims are consequential due to bills. In the result, complainant may claim relief as per Indian Telegraph Act.

17.     There is no evidence on record regarding loss caused due to act of opposite party. The  complainant is entitle to seek remedy as per section 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act.

18.     In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1.       The RBT Consumer Complaint No. 282/2011 is dismissed with no order  as to cost.

2.        Copy of this order be sent to the both parties.