BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 141/2012 Filed on 29.04.2012

Dated : 15.05.2012

Complainant :

Rahumudeen, Inspector of Works, Railway Quarters No. 72 A, Aristo Junction, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram-1.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties :

1. Krishna Kumar, Head-Retail Relation, M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Regional Office, Mercy Estate, 2^nd Floor, Ravipuram, Kochi-682 015.

    

2. Priyanka – Customer Care, Idea Office Communication Division, Marikar Marketing Corporation, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.

    

This O.P having been heard on 10.05.2012, the Forum on 15.05.2012 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

This complaint has been filed against opposite parties alleging as follows: Complainant had availed an Escotel mobile connection No. 9847827827 in the year 2000 and the same was taken in an auction for Rs. 50,000/- as there was a great demand for this number. Opposite parties demanded the complainant to surrender the number during April 2011 and the complainant was offered a new number. Since all his staff and relatives were familiar with this number obtained in an auction, complainant was not ready to surrender this number without any valid reasons. Since complainant was using prepaid facilities, there was no need of any questions regarding any pending bills. In the month of May 2011, complainant tried to recharge as usual, the connection was not accepting the payment. On enquiry with the 2^nd opposite party, complainant was informed that his prepaid facilities have been changed to post paid. Complainant had never given any written or verbal consents to the opposite parties to disconnect the above connection. But without any notice or specific reasons, the opposite parties disconnected the outgoing facilities in November 2011 and incoming facilities on 3^rd December 2011. On enquiry, he was informed that he will be given postpaid connection instead of prepaid. It is assumed that there was great demand for the above number and somebody played a foul play to outcast the complainant from the list of Idea. The opposite parties, after disconnecting all facilities, assured the complainant that it will take few days to get the connection and complainant told opposite parties specifically that he was not at all interested for a postpaid connection. Several months have elapsed but the opposite parties failed to give the connection back to the complainant even though there is no mistake on his part. This act of the opposite parties caused the complainant irreparable injury, mental agony, bad reputation in the department, affecting his career and financial loss etc. Hence this complaint.

We have gone through the entire pleadings in the complaint. As seen from the averments in the complaint, the dispute appears to be regarding disconnection of the mobile connection and the facility available for the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan & another that “In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Sec. 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Sec. 7 B of the Telegraph Act reads as under :

Sec. 7 B. Arbitration of Disputes : (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 the determination of disputes under this section. (2) The award of the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court. Rule 413 of the “Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules”. In the case in hand complainant has alleged that his prepaid facility has been changed to postpaid and without any notice or specific reasons, the opposite parties disconnected his outgoing facilities and incoming facilities which bring the case within the ambit of the above ruling. It can be seen that the dispute is regarding barring and availability of connection and the facility available for the same. As far as these kinds of disputes are concerned, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. Hence it is found that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide dispute regarding the service available under the above. Hence as per the dictum of the apex court, at present, in General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan & another we are of the view that this complaint cannot be entertained by this Forum.

In the result, the complaint is found not maintainable before the Forum and hence dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach any legal authority for redressal of his grievances if any.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of May 2012.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER (Sd/-)

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT (Sd/-)

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER (Sd/-)