Date of Filing: 05.11.2017
Date of Order:15.07.2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
ON THIS THE MONDAY THE 15th DAY OF JULY, 2019
C.C.No.510 /2016
Between
Mr..C.Malla Reddy,
S/o. Late Sri C. Krishdna Reddy
Aged about 82 Years, Occ: Senior Advocate,
R/o.#443/A6, Jubilee Hills, yderabad,
Office: H.No.3-6
Hyderabad
Office: H.No.3-6-569, Street No.8,
Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ……Complainant
And
- The Chairman / Managing Director,
IDEA Cerllular Limited, Khan Latif Khan Estate,
Fateh Maiden Road, Hyderabad – 500 001.
- The Area Manager,
IDEA Cellular Limited,
Khan Latif Khan Estate,
Fateh Maiden Road,
Hyderabad – 500 001.
- The Telecom Regulator authority
Of India (TRAI), New Delhi. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainants : M/s. M/s.V.Sudheer
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Mr.P.Sriniva Rao.
O R D E R
(By Sri. Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
1) This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that raising telephone bill amount at Rs.3,365.38ps. and failure to furnish call data and to make an enquiry of suspected fraud amounts to deficiency of service. Hence a direction to the opposite parties to furnish call data, make an enquiry of suspected fraud to restore the complainant’s mobile connection and pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony by disconnecting mobile service and to award costs of this complaint.
.2) Complainant’s case in brief is as under:
Complainant is a designated senior advocate practicing in the High court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and having more than 52 years standing at the bar. He is the customer of the opposite party and obtained mobile services connection bearing No.9848014347 about more than 10 years back. Whenever a bill was raised he paid without any default to the opposite parties. He was served a bill dated 12.4.2016 for the period from 12th March to 11th April, 2016 for sum of Rs.3,365.38 which he disputed. His average bill never exceeded more than Rs.300/- at any given point of time till date from the beginning of using of mobile service of the opposite parties. The bill raised for Rs.3,365.38ps. is ambiguous and not genuine. Hence he orally called upon opposite parties to furnish call data for verification but the same was not provided to find out as to how bill was raised for such huge amount . The complainant did not use even internet on mobile. Opposite parties did not provide the data though he specifically requested for it. He was also not replied for his request for call data. Left with no alterative he addressed a letter on 23.5.2016 stating that he is not prepared the bill amount unless enquiry is made with a notice to him to find out as to how and who indulged in mischief. Opposite parties having received the said notice did not respond and disconnected outgoing calls without any intimation to him.
The agents of the opposite party visiting residence of the complainant and insisting to pay bill amount and when he demanded them to produce call details they expressed their inability to furnish it. The opposite party agents are frequently visiting and threatening to pay bill amounts otherwise he has to face dairy consequences. Opposite parties played fraud by raising bill for huge amount without any basis and without furnishing call data. As the opposite parties bared out going calls he was constrained to obtain another for mobile connection. He has got several clients in Hyderabad, R.R. District, Secunderabad and different States in India. By disconnecting service mobile the opposite parties have caused hardship and mental agony and irreparable loss both financially and mentally and same cannot be compensated. Hence the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
3) Opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed a common written version contending that complaint has been filed on the basis of false and frivolous allegations without any substance. The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) 24577/2010 and same view has been expressed by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission while dealing with FA111/2007.
The complainant was subscriber with mobile No.9848014347 for 6 years and he availed satisfactory services without any sort of difficulties. Monthly bill for the period from 12 March 2016 to 11th April, 2016 was generated for a sum of Rs.3,365.38 and on verification it was found that the same has been arrived based on 3 international calls made from the complainant mobile during various dates detailed as under:
Date | Number called | Call charges (INR) |
12-March – 2016 | 68630009646 | 60 |
12-March – 2016 | 68630009646 | 1200 |
15 – March – 2016 | 686300011134 | 1400 |
Total | | 2660 |
The letter of the complainant dated 23.5.2016 was replied on 13.6.2016 giving details with above said international calls and other calls as asked by the complainant who acknowledged it on 22.6.2016. As such the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties having received his letter dt.23.5.2016 did not respond is absolutely false and created for the purpose of present complaint. There is no reason to make enquiry since call data has recorded technically and report is generated when a search was made electrically from server. There is no human interference in generating of the bill. As such there is no scope for any personal to have any personal interest or for doing any of the mischief as imagined by complainant.
Opposite party is a company personally managed with high moral ethics and customer centric. The company works on its values and ethics and does not indulge in any unethical or illegal activities as alleged in the complaint. The bill was generated based upon the calls made from the mobile number of the complainant on the even dates. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Before disconnection of the mobile services request was made to the complainant on several occasions for payment of bill amount. Since the complainant was negligent and refused to pay outstanding dues even after repeated remainders and requests the opposite party disconnected the service and it does not amount to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.O
4) In the enquiry the complainant filed his evidence affidavit reiterating facts narrated in the complaint and got exhibited 9 documents. For opposite parties No.1 and 2 evidence affidavit of one Sri A.V.. Naidu stated to be an authorized signatory of the opposite party got filed . The substance of the same is in line with defense`` in the written version and two documents are exhibited.. Both sides have filed written arguments and made oral submissions.
5) On a consideration of material placed on record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?
- To what relief?
6) Point No.1: The first and foremost objection raised by the opposite parties is that in view of the judgments of the Hob’ble Supreme Court in SLP ( civil) 724577 / 2010 and also the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission in the judgment in FA No.111/2007 the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager Telecom Vs. Krishnan and another in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 held as under .:
There is aspecial remedyu/s. 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone and the remedy u/s.Consumer Protection Act is by bared. Section 7-B of Telegraph Act reads as under:
Section 7B in The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
[7B. Arbitration of disputes.—
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section.
(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court].
The Hon’ble National ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission while followingjudgmentsof the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the SLP referredabovealso that thejudgments of Supreme Court is binding on all subordinatecourts.The same has been also followed bythe Hon’bleA.P. StateConsumer Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in FA NO.1265/2008 .In the light of thissettled law the complainant cannot maintainthe presentcomplaint before this Forum as the dispute raised by him is relatedto bill raised by the opposite parties.Accordingly the point is answered.
7) Point No.2: In view of the findings of point No.1 the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for . Accordingly the point is answered
8) PointNo.3:- In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 – Monthly bill
Ex.A2 - Letter to the opposite party dt. 23.5.2016
Ex.A3 – Postal receipt
Ex.A4 & A5 – Monthly bills
Ex.A6 –. Letter from the opposite party dt.14.6.2016
Ex.A7 – Returned cover
Ex.A8 – Letter to the opposite party dt.24.6.2016
Ex.A9 – Postal receipt.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1 – Monthly bill of complainant.
Ex.B2 – Letter to the complainant dt.13.6.2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
