The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Jay HANUMAN COMMUNICATION, Motiganj, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the Reliance Communication Ltd., Customer care Office at Balasore and O.P No.3 is the M.D, Reliance Communication, Kharvel Nagar, Unit-3, Bhubaneswar.

                    2. Shorn of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant used one Reliance RIM SIM for last two years vide SIM No.9337111098 and in the course of recharge, the Complainant as per advice of O.P No.1 recharged his mobile for Rs.297/- (Rupees Two Hundred ninety seven) only on 24.12.2014 and obtained a money receipt from O.P No.1 followed by a SMS “Service has been activated on the phone”, but no balance available out of said recharge. As per advice of O.P No.1, the Complainant approached O.P No.2 by sending an E-Mail along with personal visit and O.P No.2 replied through E-Mail on 26.12.2014 stating “Complainant’s complain was to issue to their concern Department for appropriate action very soon”. But, till date the said amount is not received in the above said SIM account of the Complainant, for which the Complainant filed the case for necessary relief. Such activities committed by the O.Ps amounts to deficiency-in-service as well as unfair trade practice to the Complainant, thereby causing mental agony also. The Complainant has prayed for realization of recharge amount with interest along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

                     3. Though sufficient opportunities are given to O.P No.1, but he has not appeared in the case. So, the O.P No.1 is set ex-parte.

                     4. The O.P No.2 and 3 has appeared in this case through their Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability, jurisdiction as well as its cause of action. They have admitted the Complainant is a “User of mobile Networks” under the O.P No.2 and 3 vide his SIM No.9337111098. Out of so many alternative formulated by the O.P No.3 for the benefit and welfare of its different users, the Complainant requested the O.P No.1 to recharge his mobile with Rs.297/- (Rupees Two hundred ninety seven) only Plan (Black Berry Plan), accordingly the O.P No.1 has duly recharged Rs.297/- (Rupees Two Hundred ninety seven) only (Black Berry Plan) and the same is activated by O.P No.2 and 3, as such no balance amount arising from and out of the said pack/plan has been credited to the mobile of the Complainant, but the Complainant is harping upon “balance amount for the recharge is not available on his hand held phone, however there is absolutely no averment whether the desired services are working on his phone”. In this connection, it may also be noted here that as is quite apparent from the E-Mail dt.26.12.2014 sent from the mail ID of present Complainant-BIKASH DAS (

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act, 1986 ?

(ii) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ? 

                    6. In order to substantiate their pleas, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after recharge of an amount of Rs.297/- (Rupees Two Hundred ninety seven) only in his mobile vide SIM No.9337111098 on 24.12.2014, no balance was available from this recharge and a message has been received as Service has been activated on the phone. Instead of several approaches to the O.Ps and when failed, the Complainant has filed this case praying for necessary relief. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.2 and 3 that this case is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a Consumer and according to the Section-7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this case and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. O.P No.2 and 3 has filed document as Annexure-1, which discloses that the above SIM no. is allotted to one Rajib Pradhan, other than the Complainant. According to the C.P Act, 1986, the Complainant is not a Consumer as no material is available in the case record to show that he is a Consumer. In support of their argument, the O.P No.2 and 3 has relied upon the Authority reported in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 in the case of General Manager, Telecom (Vrs.) M Krishnan & Anr., where in it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that when there is special remedy provided in Section-7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of Telephone bills, then the remedy under the C.P Act is by implication barred. Section-7 (B) provides that dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government for determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of the disputes.   

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, now this Forum come to the conclusion that this Complainant is not a Consumer and the Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against O.P No.1 and on contest against O.P No.2 and 3, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 23th day of August, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.