View 32914 Cases Against Life Insurance
View 32914 Cases Against Life Insurance
S. Jagjit Singh filed a consumer case on 03 May 2012 against HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/162/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Disctrict Consumer Redressal ForumChadigarh | |||||||||||
CONSUMER CASE NO. 162 of 2012 |
1. S. Jagjit Singh#90 Richmond ST Coverntry CV2 4HY england, Presently Residing at # 501 Sector-16/C Chandigarh | ...........Appellant(s) | ||||||||||
Vs. | |||||||||||
1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.through its managing Director having its office at 13th floor Lodha Excelus Apollo Mills Compound N.M.Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi Maharastra Mumbai-4000112. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. through its general Manager having its office at SCO No. 50-51 Sector-9/D Second Floor Chandigarh-160017UT3. HDFC bank Ltd.through its Branch Manager having its office at SCO 78-79 Sector-8/C Chandigarh | ...........Respondent(s) |
For the Appellant : |
For the Respondent : |
ORDER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vivek …..Complainant V E R S U S 1. Bharti Airtel Limited, through its authorized signatory, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi I.T.Park, 2. Bharti Airtel Limited, through its Managing Director, Circle Office, 224, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3, New Delhi-20. ……Opposite Parties QUORUM: P.L.AHUJA PRESIDENT RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER ARGUED BY : Sh.Inderjeet Kaushal, Counsel for complainant. PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT 1. Vivek High School through its Principal Mrs.P.K.Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr.- Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that the complainant took the mobile connection bearing No.9872010005 from the OPs, which is being used by the Principal of the school sparingly as most of the time she remains occupied and connected with a landline number of the school installed in her office. It has been contended that the complainant received bill No.861050176 dated 13.9.2012 amounting to Rs.21,593.21 along with item-wise detail, whereby, a sum of Rs.17,384.19 was charged against the mobile internet for the period from 9.8.2012 to 17.8.2012 and at that time the Principal of the school was at Canada to meet her daughter and the house of the daughter was equipped with high speed internet having Wi-Fi system. After perusal of the statement of mobile internet raised by the OPs dated 13.9.2012, it is apparently clear that the mobile internet was used/operated by the Principal from 9.8.2012 to 13.8.2012 and for that, the OPs had charged Rs.955.20P, Rs.1044.89P, Rs.6313.62P and Rs.6570.41P respectively. A copy of the bill dated 13.9.2012 along with statement of mobile is Annexure C-2. It has been further stated that the last date for the payment of the disputed bill was 1.10.2012 and the complainant school made the payment of Rs.34,098/- under protest through cheque No.113223 dated 19.9.2012. The complainant sent a representation to the OPs on 25.9.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-3. OP No.1 sent a reply through email dated 25.9.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-3/A, to the complainant and intimated that the team of OPs would contact the complainant by 26.9.2012 with an update on the issue. The customer care cell of the OPs vide email dated 27.9.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-4, informed the Principal of the school that the mobile internet charges are valid and they are unable to process the waiver towards the same. Ultimately, the complainant served legal notices dated 28.10.2012 and 5.12.2012 to the higher authorities of the OPs, copies of which are Annexure C-5 (Colly.). Thereafter, the complainant sent a reminder on 5.12.2012 to the OPs, copy of which is Annexure C-6 (Colly.). It is contended that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs by raising fake computerized bill of mobile internet used on the same time for four consecutive days and raising a hefty amount of Rs.17,384.19. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OPs to refund Rs.17,384.19 along with interest @18% from 19.9.2012 till its realization, apart from making payment of damages for harassment and litigation cost. 2. After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant on the question of admissibility of the complaint, we find that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the questions involved in the complaint in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 on 1.9.2009. In the above said judgment, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. 3. It is pertinent to note that one Prakash Verma filed a consumer complaint against Idea Cellular Limited which was dismissed by the Forum while relying upon the judgment of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and another. Then Mr.Prakash Verma filed a revision petition No.1703 of 2010 before the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble National Commission passed the following order on 21.5.2010 :- “Fora below have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another – (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.” It is also worth nothing that thereafter Prakash Verma filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.27577 of 2010 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1.10.2010 dismissed that Special Leave Petition. In this view of the matter, any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only. 4. The learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to private service providers. However, there is no force in this contention. In a latest judgment Hon’ble State Commission of Punjab in Punjab Khapatkar Sangh (regd.) Vs. Spice Communication Limited, 2011 CTJ 574 (SP) (SCDRC) has held that the controversy that the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and another applies only to the landline telephones comes to an end and the law stands settled that the Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint concerning the telephones, whether landlines or mobile. 5. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that the dispute between the parties cannot be decided by this Forum because of special remedy of arbitration provided under the Indian Telegraph Act. 6. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed holding that the dispute between the complainant and the OPs can be resolved by taking recourse to the arbitration proceedings. 7. The certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge. The file be consigned.BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No.162 of 2012 S.Jagjit Singh Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited & ors. PRESENT: Sh.Pankaj Katia, Counsel for Complainant. Sh.Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OP No.1 & 2. Sh.Rajiv Goel, Counsel for OP No.3. Dated the 3rd day of May, 2012 ORDER Counsel for complainant made statement, recorded separately on the complaint itself, that he withdraws the complaint with liberty to file fresh case in the Court having jurisdiction for the same cause of action. The said statement has not been opposed by counsel for OPs; vide separate statements recorded on the complaint itself. In view of this, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh in the Court having jurisdiction in the matter on the same cause of action, as per law. Certified copies of this order free of cost be supplied to the parties. The file be consigned. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA) (RAJINDER SINGH GILL) (P.D.GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
|