Idea Cellular Ltd V/S Sujith Chacko - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Pathanamthitta

CC/11/36

Sujith Chacko - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2011

ORDER

Complaint Case No. CC/11/36

1. Sujith Chacko

Pulimoottil House Kizhakkummury Kavumbhagom P.O Kavumbhagom Village Thiruvalla Taluk

Pathanamthitta

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Idea Cellular Ltd

Rep by its Corporate Head/ Managing Director, Suman Towers Plot No.1 Sector No.11 Gandhinagar, Gujarat-380211

2. The Regional Manager

Idea Cellular Ltd,2nd Floor,Mercy Estate, Ravipuram,M.G.Road,Cochin

3. The Branch Head

Nest Enterprises,Idea Retail Outlet/Showroom, Market Road,Thiruvalla-1

............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HONORABLE Jacob Stephen PRESIDENT
	HONORABLE N.PremKumar Member

PRESENT:

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2011.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C. No. 36/2011 (Filed on 14.02.2011)

Between:

Sri. Sujith Chacko,

Pulimoottil House,

Kizhakkumuri,

Kavumbhagom P.O.,

Thiruvalla Taluk.

(By Adv. Dilieep Mathai) …. Complainant.

And:

1. IDEA Cellular Ltd.,

Represented by its Corporate Head/

Managing Director,

Suman Towers, Plot No.1,

Sector No.11, Gandhi Nagar,

Gujarat – 380 211.

2. The Regional Manager,
IDEA Cellular Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, Mercy Estate,

Ravipuram, M.G. Road,

Cochin – 682 015.

(By Adv. Koshy Thomas)

3. The Branch Head,

NEST Enterprises,

IDEA Retail Outlet,

Show-room, Market Road,

Thiruvalla -1. …. Opposite parties.

ORDER

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

2. The complainant’s case is that he was a prepaid mobile phone subscriber of the opposite parties with mobile No.9961483617. On 31.10.2010 he converted the prepaid connection to postpaid connection by paying ` 250. While so, he got an invoices of the opposite parties dated 10.11.2010 on 18.11.2010 in which he was directed to remit ` 78-30 on or before 25.11.2010. But surprisingly after the receipt of the said invoice, the complainant noticed that his cellular connection stands disconnected and the display appeared in his mobile phone is to the effect that “Simcard Registration failed”. Noticing the disconnection, the complainant contacted the second and third opposite parties and told about the disconnection. But opposite parties demanded and directed the complainant that an amount of ` 989-32 is due from cellular connection No. 9961106182 availed by one Susil Chacko. Even though, the complainant intimated the second and third opposite parties that he is not bound to pay the bill amount of the said customer, opposite parties insisted for the payment and told that without paying the said amount, the complainants’ connection will not be re-instated. The above said act of the opposite parties is illegal, improper, arbitrary, unfair and opposed to public policy and it is a clear instance of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant caused legal notice on 19.11.2010 demanding ` 25,000 as damages from the opposite parties. Though opposite parties acknowledged the notice, they have not acted in terms of the legal notice. Hence this complaint for the realization of ` 25,000 as damages for the mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant along with cost of this complaint.

3. Opposite parties entered appearance and the second opposite party filed a version with the following contentions: Second opposite party challenges the maintainability of this complaint in the light of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 in which the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums are ousted in respect of the dispute between Telecom Service and their customers and the said disputes are governed under Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Apart from the above contention, the second opposite party contended that the complainant’s allegation was false and they have never disconnected the complainant’s connection. The message seen in the complainant’s mobile phone “Simcard Registration failed” does not indicates disconnection. The said message is due to the net work error. If there is disconnection, the message that can be seen or heard in the mobile phone is “this facility is not available in your phone”. On getting the complaint of the complainant, they have corrected the net work error on 22.11.2010. Thereafter, the complainant had made calls from his mobile. The bill dated 10.12.2010 proves that calls has been made by the complainant from his connection. The complainant’s connection was disconnected on 10.01.2011 due to the non-payment of the bills. Complainant had failed to make payment for the month of November 2010 and December 2010. An amount of ` 154-19 is still due from the complainant. Therefore, this complaint is not allowable as the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points were raised for consideration:

(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3) Reliefs and Costs?

5. Evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 series and B1 to B7. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

6. Point No.1: Opposite parties raised an objection regarding the maintainability of this complaint in the light of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004. As per the said judgment, Consumer Protection Act is a General Act and Indian Telegraph is a Special Act. The General Rule is, Special Acts over rides General Act. Telecom Services were governed by the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which is Special Act wherein there is a special provision under Sec. 7B of Indian Telegraph Act for redressing the grievances of the customers.

7. As per Sec. 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, any dispute between Telecom Service and its customers can be settled under Sec. 7B of Indian Telegraph Act. This dispute is between the Idea Cellular Ltd. and a customer of the said Telecom Company. So this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the dispute between the parties can be settled as per Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. This position was also followed by the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No. 1703 of 2010. In the circumstance, we find that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

8. Point Nos. 2 & 3: In the light of the findings on point No.1, these points are not considered.

9. In the result, this complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. No cost. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent authority as per Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for redressing his grievances.

Declared in the Open Forum on this the 19^th day of October, 2011.

(Sd/-)

Jacob Stephen,

(President)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 : Sujith Chacko

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Bill dated 10.11.2010 for ` 78-30 issued by the second opposite

party to the complainant.

A2 : Copy of legal notice dated 19.11.2010 sent by the complainant to

the opposite parties.

A3, A3(a) & A3(b) : Postal receipts of Ext. A2 legal notice.

A4, A4(a) & A4(b) : Acknowledgment cards of Ext. A2 legal notice.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 : Rajkumar Pavothil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 : Copy of bill dated 10.11.2010 for ` 78-30 issued by the second