Subject of the complaint which compelled the complainant to hook this commission is that the complainant’s husband Chedilal Agarwala had entered an agreement with M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited represented by its power of attorney agent Mr. Shaheedul Hasan on 26.07.2007 to provide service for mobile tower which has been situated in Vill- Mashaldah Bazar, P.O. Koriali, P.S. Harishchandrapur, Dist. Malda, Mouza. Mashaldah being J.L. no 178, khatian No 160, Plot no 6 and it bounded by North: Land of owner, South: Land of owner and Road, East & West: Land of owner. The said agreement was executed between the husband of the complainant (died on 26.11. 2011) and M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited with full satisfaction of the terms and condition of the said agreement duly been signed on 26.07.2007. The OP as per agreement agreed to pay initial monthly remuneration of Rupees 3500/- in exchange of providing service in favour of the husband of the complainant by the way of account transfer through Union Bank. After that M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited made a proposal for providing service for set up additional infrastructure CMTE with Uninor and on that basis one supplementary agreement was executed. The supplementary agreement which has been effected on 21.06.2010 to 20.06.2013 of Rs 2000/-, 21.6.2013 to 20.06.2016 Rs. 2200/-, 21.06.2016 to 20.06.2019 of Rs 2420/- and 21.06.2019 to 02.10.2019 of Rs 2662/- in addition of Rs. 3500/-. After supplementary agreement between the parties the OP has been paying monthly remuneration against providing service up to 13.12.2012 in favour of the husband of the complainant. On the basis of the order of Honourable High Court the terms and condition of the agreement was transferred from the concern of M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd to JTL Infrastructure limited which has been effected on 19.07.2010 and one letter dated 20.07.2010 duly been sent to the husband of the complainant from the side of the both concern under proper signature and seal. It is herewith annex the copy of letter dated 20.07.2010 addressing the husband of the complainant and on the basis of the transfer the agreement between the parties and the OP accepted the terms and condition and paying remuneration against provide service up to November 2012. After demise of Chedilal Agarwala, the complainant wrote a letter to Manager GTL Limited Kolkata on 15.03.2012. After that the complainant gave remainder letter on 17.12.2012. OP did not reply. There after OP sent a MoU affidavit manually on 08.11.2017and execute the same by complainant and her two sons. In spite of that OP did not disburse the monthly payment of remuneration since December 2012. Due to negligence as well as insufficient service and unfair trade practice caused by OP the complainant is suffering much pecuniary loss. Hence the complainant approached before this commission for the relief remuneration of Rs 6,67,954/-, financial loss and injury Rs. 1,00,000/- harassment and mental agony 50,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 50,000/-.

In order to substantiate the complainant filed the documents like lease deed between Chedilal Agarwala and M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited, Death Certificate of Chedilal Agarwala, Bank Statements, Supplementary Agreement, RTI copy, Khajna copy, LR copy, MoU of Pushpa Devi Agarwala and Ajay Agarwala, Sanjay Agarwala with Chennai Network Infrastructure etc.

Complainant examined herself in writing with affidavit. OPs Company receives summon but did not pay heed to it. OP 4 and 5 namely Ajay Agarwala, Sanjay Agarwala received summons and contested the case. And the case runs exparte against OP no 1 to 3.

Decision with Reason

This commission carefully perused the documents and unchallenged evidence in writing by the complainant and OP 3 and 4. Now admitted position though having properly summoned OP 1 to 3 but they did not dare to appear before this commission to establish their fairness in service or to show that no fault on their part.

Consequently on perusal of Lease Deed which was executed between Chedilal Agarwala and M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited we, the commission found in lease deed para-7 on Dispute Resolution “If any dispute, difference or question concerning the interpretation of any provision of this agreement arises or as to the right, liabilities  and duties of either party, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator duly appointed by the Lessee herein, which shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including any statutory modification thereof. The place of such arbitration shall be Chennai. The language of arbitration shall be English. The decision of arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties and judgment thereon may be entered in the court of competent jurisdiction. The Courts having competent jurisdiction in the subject matter shall alone decide any dispute between the parties.

Notwithstanding to the…. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of India and Courts at Chennai alone shall have jurisdiction.”  

          Chedilal Agarwala, husband of the complainant died on 26.11.2011. He signed the Lease Deed with the OP Company. The original lease deed and supplementary deed were submitted by the complainant to this commission which bears seal and sign of both the parties. After death of Chedilal Agarwala another lease deed was executed with the complainant and the OP Company. The complainant supplied photo copy of this lease deed to this commission but on perusal it is noticed that it bears only signature no official seal or stamp. Complainant prays due rent/remuneration from OP Company from December 2012. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get due rent/remuneration from OP Company through this Commission.

Hence Ordered

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

          Disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.