BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.419/2011

Dated this the 25^th day of April2012

 

            ( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB.                              : President)

                             Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A.                                       : Member

                             Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB.                                 : Member

 

 

 

ORDER

 

By G. Yadunadhan, President:

 

            The petition was filed on 27-10-2011. The case of the complainant that the complainant had availed a Mobile connection from the opposite party by paying the requisite amount. Opposite party allotted the Mobile No. 9847477717 after submitting necessary documents like Passport size photos along with I.D card. This number had been used last 7 years. One fine morning opposite party intimated to the complainant stating that all the documents produced earlier should be submitted again with immediate effect. After receiving the message from the opposite party complainant arranged all these documents but suddenly outgoing calls were stopped. After a few days incoming calls were also stopped. This act is clearly a deficiency of service on the side of opposite party. Therefore complainant seeking relief against opposite party to reconnect the service of Mobile No. 98474777717 and also pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

            Opposite party after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version stating that the summary of the complaint is that Mobile Connection No. 9847477717 which was being used by the complainant for the last seven/two years was disconnected- out-going calls being barred from 29-4-2011 and subsequently entire services were barred. Complaint is not maintainable under various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all Services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraphs Rules are subject to Telegraph. The complaint relates to a Service relating to Telephone. Section-7B of the Telegraph Act provides- Sec.-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 persons for 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 o 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 opposite parties would place reliance on the decision of the National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 21-5-2010 upholding the view of the Madhya Pradesh State Commission in Prakash Varma Vs Idea Cellular Limited where a complaint filed against Idea Cellular Limited the first opposite party in this complaint had been dismissed holding that complaint is not maintainable in view of Section-7B of the Telegraph Act. These opposite parties further submit that this decision of the Hon’ble National Forum was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court when the Apex Court dismissed SLP No. 24577/2010 filed before the Apex Court as per order dated 1^st October 2010. These opposite parties further submit that the above decision was based in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs V.M. Krishnan & Another (2009) 8 SCC 482 where the Apex Court had held that it is a settled law that General law must yield to Special Law and that there was a remedy prescribed under Section 7 B of the Telegraph Act for resolution of all disputes regarding telecom through arbitration where the Court further observed that these disputes would be resolved through arbitration provided under Section-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. the dictum in the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the National Consumer Redressal Commission in Mani Ram Pareek Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. as per order dated 3-11-2011. Under these circumstances complaint is liable to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

            The opposite party raised an issue regarding the maintainability of Telephone cases including private firm services. Heard both sides. The Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party argued in detail by supporting decision of Prakash Varma Vs Idea Cellular Limited 2010 Madhya Pradesh. On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records we find that the question that come up for consideration is whether the complaint was maintainable before this Forum. The learned counsel for the opposite party has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission. On perusal of the said decisions it is found that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that any dispute between the subscriber and the Telegraph Authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only. The Hon’ble National Commission also followed the same view in Prakash Varmas Vs Idea Cellular Ltd. It is found that Hon’ble Supreme Court have taken a view that the dispute between a subscriber and the service provider with regard to telegraph connection cannot be adjudicated by the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Under these circumstances complaint is liable to be dismissed with lack of jurisdiction.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 25^th   day of April 2012.

Date of filing:27.10.2011

 

SD/-PRESIDENT                                SD/-MEMBER            SD/-MEMBER

 

//True copy//

 

 

(Forwarded/By Order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT