Haryana

StateCommission

RP/116/2016

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI PARKASH GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

SUMEDHA SHARMA

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No:   116 of 2016

Date of Institution:        07.12.2016

Date of Decision :         16.12.2016

1.     M/s Vodafone Mobile Service Limited, A-19, Mohan Co-Opt. Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, NH-2, New Delhi-110044.

2.     The Manager, Vodafone Mobile Service Limited, Vodafone Store, Shop No.B.27, K.L. Mehta Road, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad-121001 (Hr.)

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Jai Prakash Gupta (J.P. Gupta) C/os M/s Crown Techno-build, B-1/D-1, Mohan Co-Opt. Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, NH-2, New Delhi-110044.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Ms. Shalini Sati Prasad Advocate assisted by Shri Amitesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate for petitioners.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          M/s Vodafone Mobile Service Limited-Opposite Parties have preferred the present revision petition against the order dated November 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’), vide which the opposite parties put in appearance on that date, that is, 18^th November, 2016 and complaint was adjourned to 20^th December, 2016 for filing written version by the petitioners-opposite parties. By way of interim order, direction was given to the petitioners-opposite parties to restore the outgoing calls service of the complainant.

2.                As per the copy of complaint placed on the file by the petitioners, the facts of the case are that Jai Prakash Gupta-complainant/respondent, subscriber of mobile phone No.9811646666 (postpaid) has been receiving normal bills against usage of the mobile connection. He received an e-mail on 29^th September, 2016 as well as telephonic communication to contact opposite parties.   The local manager of petitioner-opposite party No.2 offered a plan under “International Roaming Plan” as well as “email facility” which included as under:-

                   i)        Incoming calls from service provider, free

                   ii)       Outgoing call charges Rs.1/- per minute

                   iii)      Data charges Rs.1/- per M.B.

3.                The complainant finding the same to be economically beneficial agreed to the said plan. The   complainant visited to “Jakarta” on 25^th September, 2016 and returned on 28^th September, 2016. To his surprise, he received a demand of Rs.62,179.93. The complainant immediately lodged a complaint questioning the said demand and not getting any satisfactory reply, and alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986). The complainant also filed an application under Section 13 (3-B) of the Act, 1986 for grant of ad-interim relief.

4.                In response to the notice, the opposite parties-petitioners put in appearance on 18^th November, 2016 and sought time to file written version when the District Forum passed the impugned order as detailed earlier.

5.                The petitioners, without filing written version to the complaint, have challenged the order inter alia stating that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to grant any interim relief besides that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the same as it did not fall within the ambit of the Act, 1986.

6.                Learned counsel for the petitioners-opposite parties raised two fold arguments. Firstly that the dispute of bill did not fall within the domain of Act, 1986 being barred in view of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and that the District Forum was not competent to pass any interim order. Reference was made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, titled as General Manager Telecom Versus M.Krishnan & Anr, decided on 01.09.2009,  reported as 2009 (4) C.C.C. page 1

7.                Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 8285/2010 & C.M. No.21319/2010, J.K. Mittal versus Union of India and others, decided on 6^th February, 2012 while interpreting the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Indian Telegraph Act pertains to department of telephone, Government of India and it did not apply to the mobile services providers as the same were incorporated under the Companies Act, therefore neither provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, nor the Telegraph Rules of 1951 were applicable to companies. Therefore, the dispute between a subscriber and a service provider was entertain able by the Consumer Fora.

8.                There is another aspect that pursuance to passing of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Telecommunications, vide No. 2-17/2013-Policy-I, letter was circulated to all the Consumer Fora, that is, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, all the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, wherein it has been specifically clarified that the Consumer Protection Act was applicable to the telephone service providing companies and therefore the disputes were entertain able by the Consumer Fora.

9.                As regard the next contention that the District Forum was not competent to grant any interim relief, Section 13(3-B) of the Act, 1986 reads as under:-

“(3B)           Where during the pendency of any proceeding before the District Forum, it appears to it necessary, it may pass such interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

10.              We also observe that the petitioners have not yet filed their written version and without filing their written version and without any decision being taken on the defences available to the petitioners, the petitioners could not have filed the revision petition.

11.              In view of the above, the revision petition fails. It is dismissed.

 

Announced 16.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL