DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.159 of 15-04-2011 Decided on 15-07-2011
Dalip Kumar, aged about 27 years, son of Sh. Tara Chand, Resident of Street No.14, SAS Nagar, Near Tarun Public School, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
The Incharge, Vodfone Essar, South Limited, Plot No.131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali. Harsh Garv Enterprizes (Vodafone), Shop No.5706, The Mall, Bathinda. Vodafone Essar South Ltd., SCF No.79, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Main Road, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Sunil Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Post-paid connection bearing No.97808-43627 about 4 years back and has been paying the bills regularly. The opposite parties issued a bill for a sum of Rs.143/-, payable on 26.12.2010. The complainant had deposited Rs.150/- with the opposite party No.2 on 04.01.2011 vide receipt No.023784. Thereafter, the complainant received a bill for the period from 09.12.2010 to 08.01.2010 dated 09.01.2011payable on 26.01.2011. The complainant noticed that the opposite parties have shown Rs.143/- as previous balance in the said bill. The complainant approached to office of the opposite party No.2 and requested regarding this matter but the they did not listen anything. The complainant complained to customer care of the opposite parties vide complaint No.2181269980 but nothing has been done by the opposite parties and this amount has also been added in the next bills. The outgoing calls of the complainant has also stopped on 30.03.2011 due to non-payment of the said amount of Rs.143/-. The complainant also served a legal notice to the opposite parties on 31.03.2011 but they did not give any reply to the legal notice rather the opposite parties again sent a bill dated 09.04.2011 payable on 26.04.2011 showing the previous balance of Rs.332.06/- total amount was shown as Rs.629.92/- which is to be paid by the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled General Manager, Telecom Vs M. Krishnan and Ors. wherein it has held that when there is a special remedy provided in Sec.7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, regarding disputes with respect to telephone bills, the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. This was further made applicable to the private operators by the judgment passed by the National Commission and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As per terms and conditions of the agreement Form, the complainant and the opposite parties has agreed that in case of any dispute, the jurisdiction would vests with the courts at Delhi and not at Bathinda. The amount of Rs.150/- deposited by the complainant was not updated in the system. The complainant has failed to make the payment of full amount of the bills subsequently for all months from January till April 2011. His number was suspended on 19.04.2011 on account of non-payment of dues. After the payment was made by the complainant on 23.04.2011 and 30.04.2011, the number was again activated. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The main contention of the complainant is that he had purchased Post-paid mobile connection bearing No.97808-43627 from the opposite parties. A bill for Rs.143/- was issued by the opposite parties, payable on 26.12.2010 which he had deposited by paying Rs.150/- to the opposite party No.2 on 04.01.2011 vide receipt No.023784. Thereafter, he again received a bill dated 09.01.2011 for the period from 09.12.2010 to 08.01.2011. In that bill, the balance of Rs.143/- has been shown whereas this amount had already been deposited. The outgoing calls of the connection of the complainant were barred on 30.03.2011 due to non-payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.143/-. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant had failed to make the regular payments of the bills from January till April 2011 and as such, his services were suspended on account of non-payment of the bills. After receiving the payment by the complainant on 23.04.2011 and 30.04.2011, the number was again activated. 7. The matter in this complaint is with regard to dispute regarding the non-payment of the bills of mobile connection. The outgoing calls of the complainant were barred due to non-payment of the bills. When, the opposite parties received the payment, they activated the connection of the complainant. Moreover, any dispute with regard to tele-communication, cannot be adjudicate by Consumer Forum. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled General Manager, Telecom Vs M. Krishnan & Anr., 2009 (4) RCR Civil 8, wherein, it has been held that:- “Disconnection of Telephone connection for non payment of bill – Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction – Special remedy is provided in Telegraph Act. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (d), (g) and (o) and Section 11 – Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 7B – Jurisdiction – Telephone connection of Respondent disconnected for non payment of telephone bill – Respondent filed complaint before Consumer Forum – Held, Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction – There is a special remedy in Section 7B of Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills – Thus, remedy under Consumer Protection Act is barred by implication – Special law overrides the general law – Order of Consumer Forum restoring the connection and imposing the penalty set aside.” A special remedy is available to the complainant under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bills. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a remedy under the Consumer protection Act is by implication barred u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act which is read as under:- “S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes:- 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. 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.”
8. Therefore, this Forum, under the ’Act’ has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’
Pronounced 15.07.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
