Complainant present in person
Opponents through Lrd Adv. Bafna
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(23/12/2013)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against the Telephone Company for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as flows,
1] The complainant has obtained mobile connection from the opponent and his mobile number is 9881144570. His connection was post paid, which was obtained from branch office at Paud Road, Pune–38. It is the case of the complainant that mobile bill for the period of 12/3/2011 to 11/4/2011 was Rs. 446.67 ps. This bill was received by the complainant by message. The complainant had deposited the said bill on 21/4/2011 by cheque. That amount is debited from his account. On 11/5/2011, the mobile connection of the complainant was disconnected. On that day the complainant was out of station and he was asked to produce the details of his bank account. The complainant submitted that as per his account, his amount is debited on 26/11/2011. The mobile service was continued till 11/5/2011. However, the opponents have intimated that he should deposit the bill amount in any of the branch and the service will be continued within two hours. On behalf of him, his friend Adv. Abhay Ajnadkar has deposited an amount of Rs. 450/- in the branch of opponent at Tilak Road, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 30 as per transaction ID No. MH 305116080333. It is the case of the complainant that the opponent had deposited the said amount in the account of different mobile number. Adv. Abhay Ajnadkar intimated this fact to the opponent, but the correct receipt was not given to him. Still on 13/5/2011 the mobile services were not continued. Thus, the opponents have caused deficiency in service by not restoring the mobile service of the complainant. The complainant had suffered lot of inconvenience due to disconnection of the mobile service. He had sustained business loss of Rs. 2 lacs. He had claimed compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- for deficiency in service, loss in business etc.
2] The complaint is strongly opposed by the opponent by filing written version. The contents of the complaint were denied by the opponent. It is the case of the opponent that in view of section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act, regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. Rest of the facts as regards payment of the bill by the complainant are denied. It is the case of the opponent that Adv. Abhay Ajnadkar had deposited the bill in the account of different mobile number. Hence, the mobile service of the complainant was not restored. The opponents have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3] After considering pleadings of both the parties and scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum and hearing the arguments of both the counsels, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for deficiency in service as regards telephone services? | In the negative. |
2. | Whether complainant has proved deficiency in service? | Does not survive. |
3. | What order? | Complaint is dismissed. |
REASONS :-
4] The complainant has filed his own affidavit as well as documents, such as statement of account, office copy of notice, copy of bill etc. It reveals from the copy of the pass book of the complainant that an amount of Rs. 533.65 was deducted on 23/5/2011. It is the case of the complainant that his friend has deposited the bill, but that amount has been credited in wrong account by the opponents. According to the learned Advocate of the opponent, the friend of the complainant had referred wrong mobile number, hence that amount was not credited in the account of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service. It is also contended by the opponent that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. In that context, the opponent has placed reliance upon the following judgments,
1. “General Manager Telecom V/S N. Krishnan
& Anr.”(SC) in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004
2. “Prakash Varma V/S Idea Cellular Ltd.” (SC)
3. “Prakash Varma V/S Idea Cellular Ltd.” (NC)
In Revision Petition No. 1703 of 2010
4. “H. R. Dhiman V/S The Manager, Idea Cellular” (NC)
In Revision Petition No. 2943 of 2012
5. “Lokesh Parashar V/S Idea Cellular Ltd.” (NC)
In Revision Petition No. 3780 of 2011
6. “Mr. Chitta Ranjan Baksi V/S Airtel Relationship Center & otr. (St.Com. W. B.) in case no. FA/107/2010
7. “Maniram Pareek V/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.” (NC) In Revision Petition No. 701 of 2011
8. “Shri. Tapas Kumar Roy V/S Gen. Manager, BSNL” (NC) Reported in 2013(3) CPR 327 (NC)
9. “Malvinder Singh V/S Matrix Cellular (International)
Services Pvt. Ltd. & anr. (St. Com. Chandigarh)
Reported in IV (2013) CPJ 16 (Chd.)
10. “Reliance Telecom V/S Jaikumar Jain & anr.
(St. Com. M.P.)” in appeal No. 669/2008
5] The learned Advocate for the complainant argued before me that the said judgments are relating to section 7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act. That section is relating with deficiency in service as regards the appliances/telephone lines etc. Said section is as follows,
(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 he 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.”
According to learned Advocate for the complainant, the dispute before this Forum is as regards the payment and non-payment of telephone bill. Hence, these rulings are not helpful to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
6] The learned Advocate for the opponent argued before me that the basic ruling is as regards jurisdiction of the Forum is in between “General Manager Telecom V/S N. Krishnan & Anr.” (SC) in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004. If the facts of the said Ruling are carefully perused, it would reveal that the said ruling is with respect to non payment of telephone bill and in that case it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the dispute should be referred to Arbitrator in view of section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act and the application of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is barred. Rest of the rulings are based upon the main Ruling of “General Manager Telecom V/S N. Krishnan & Anr.” (SC) in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004. The learned Advocate for the complainant argued before me that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute. He has placed his reliance upon the Ruling of “Nivedita Sharma V/S Cellular Operators Assn of India and Ors.” Reported in 2011 Law suit (SC) 1459. In that proceeding, it has been observed that the remedy of appeal is provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of Forum and writ petition can not lie in order to quash the order of District Forum. The facts as well as principles laid down in the said rulings are totally different and having no concern with the present dispute. Hence, that ruling is not at all applicable to the case of the complainant.
7] According to the complainant, the present case is relating with the deficiency in service and hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. But in the light of above discussion, this Forum has come to the opinion that in view of the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court f the case of “General Manager Telecom V/S N. Krishnan & Anr.” (SC) in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. As this Forum has no jurisdiction, it can not give findings on the issue as regards merits of the case i.e. deficiency in service. Hence, this Forum answers the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint stands dismissed with
no order as to the costs.
2. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
3. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 23/12/2013
