STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Hardesh Goyal s/o Sh.Hem Raj Goyal, R/o 126, HIG, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh, having mobile connection of Idea Cellular bearing No.9814093865

                                                                                             ……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.        Idea Cellular Ltd., having its Main Office at : 5th Floor, Windsor, CST Road, Kalina, Santa Cruz (E), Mumbai – 400 098 through its Chairman.

2.         Idea Cellular Ltd., having its Regional Office at SCO No.495-496, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

                                                                         ....Respondents

           Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 Present:        Sh.Hardesh Goyal, Advocate, appellant in person.

 CORAM:       Justice Sham Sunder, President(Retd)

                        Mrs.Neena Sandhu, Member

Per Justice Sham Sunder(Retd) , President

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.8.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant), being not maintainable, and at the same time, granted liberty to approach any other appropriate Forum/Court or Authority for redressal of his grievance, as available under the law. 

2.         The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant has been a  subscriber to Mobile Connection No.9814093865 of the Opposite Parties Cellular Company, since long.  It was stated that the complainant owned a Farm House at Tikkar Taal, Morni Hills, Distt. Panchkula and he used to visit the said farm house twice a month.  It was further stated that   whenever  the complainant visited his above farm house, he faced network problem.  The network of the Opposite Parties  was rarely   available at the said place, even though it was a tourist destination. The matter was reported to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties  were  misleading the public at large through advertisement, to the effect, that the network of Idea was seamless across the Country and it would  work, where others failed.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, by giving misleading advertisement, amounted to gross deficiency, in rendering service, as also, indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.         The District Forum, after hearing the   complainant, at the admission stage, and, on going through the documents, on record, came to the conclusion, that the complaint was not maintainable before it.  

4.              Accordingly, the complaint was  dismissed , in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.  

5.      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

 6.        We have heard the  appellant, and have gone through the   record of the case, carefully.

7.         The appellant submitted that his complaint was to the effect, that there was no networking with regard to mobile connection of the Opposite Parties which he had been using, since long, at Tikkar Taal, Morni Hills, District Panchkula, where his Farm House is situated and he has been going there frequently.  He further submitted that the Opposite Parties were making false claims by giving  misleading advertisement that its net work was seamless across the Country and it would work where net work of other company fails.  It was further submitted that such, misleading advertisement having been given by the Opposite Parties, amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the principle of law, laid down in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan and Anr. Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009 by the Hon’ble Apex Court and relied upon by the District Forum, for coming to the conclusion, that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora,  was not applicable to the instant case.  He further submitted that judgment in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan and Anr. Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009  is per incuriam. He further submitted that the Supreme Court  could only interpret the provisions of law and could not re-write the same. He further submitted that the  order of the District Forum, being  illegal, is liable to be set aside. 

8.         The grouse of the complainant, as expressed by him, in the complaint   was, to the effect, that he was having a mobile connection No. 9814093865 of the Opposite Parties and whenever  he went to this farm house at Tikkar Taal, Morni Hills, District Panchkula, there was always net work problem, resulting into causing mental agony and physical harassment, to him, as he could not use the said connection despite the false and misleading claims made by the Company, that their network was so strong, that it would work everywhere, where  net work of other companies  failed to work. As per the averments, contained in the complaint, the problem was allegedly with networking. It was not a case of over billing.  In General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan and Anr. Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009 ,   the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under ;

            “In our opinion 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. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:-

S. 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 or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically 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-s. (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court.

Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules………”

9.         The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The District Forum was right in placing reliance upon the same.  In the aforesaid case, it was in clear cut terms held that special remedy, by way of arbitration in Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, in respect of telephone line, telegraph line, appliance or apparatus is provided. In these circumstances, the matter was referable to the arbitrator according to Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, and the complainant could have resort to the same. The District Forum was, thus, right in placing reliance upon the said case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the complaint was not  maintainable.  The findings of the District Forum, being correct, are affirmed.

10.       The judgment in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan and Anr.’s case (supra) does not relate to re-writing of the provisions of Law. It only interprets the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act .The District Forum was right in coming to the conclusion that the defect like the one existing, in the instant case, was referable to the arbitrator and the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act was barred.   In this view of the matter, the submission of the  appellant, being devoid of matter, is rejected.

11.          No other point, was urged, by the   appellant.

12.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same  is dismissed, at the preliminary stage,  with no order as to costs.   The impugned order of the District Forum is upheld.  

13.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.       The file be consigned to the  Record Room, after compliance.

                                                                             Sd/-

Announced                                       (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER)(Retd)                

                                                                                         President                                              

September 4, 2012                                                                 

                                                                                                Sd/-                                                                                                           ( NEENA SANDHU)

                                                                                  Member

*Js/Rg