CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 20^th day of April, 2013.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

 Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 23/11/2012

CC /208/2012

Kabeer.S,

S/o. Sulaiman, Mettuvalappu,

Thathamangalam,Chittur  Complainant

Communication Address Prathibha Nagar,

2^nd Street, Gate No. 40   Kalmandapam,

Palakkad.

(By Adv. P. Sreeprakash)

Vs

Manager - Opposite party

Tata Docomo Store, NMR Hall,

11/1157 (2) T.B. Road,

Palakkad – 678 014

(By Adv. P. Muralidharan)

O R D E R

BY SMT. PREETHA.G.NAIR MEMBER

Complaint in brief 

The Complainant had availed phone connection No  7736205696 from the opposite party on 20/11/2012 the opposite party had disconnected the service connection without intimation. Then the complainant informed the disconnection to the 121 customer care and they directed to off the phone and then on. There after the complainant informed the service disconnection to the opposite party. The opposite party stated that the service connection was connected within two hours. Further the opposite party intimated to the complainant that the copy of the 3^rd page of the driving license was not shown in ID proof and so they disconnected the service connection. Firstly the connection was taken in the name of the wife of the complainant. The complainant had transferred the service connection to his name before 3 months. The opposite party has intimated that the post paid connection was only transferred during that period. On 17/11/2012 the complainant has filed application for the conversion of the service connection from pre paid to post paid. The complainant and his wife availed the service connection from the opposite party for the 3 years. But the opposite party had disconnected the service connection without issuing notice is clear deficiency of service. The complainant is working business. So he could not contacted his customers after disconnecting the service connection. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to

1. pay Rs. 95,000/- as compensation for mental agony

2. allow to transfer any other service connection and

3. return the balance amount in prepaid connection.

Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act. Any disputes between the telecom service providers and the subscribers can be subjected for adjudication before an arbitrator under the Indian Telegraph Act.

The complainant is the subscriber of the Mobile number 7736205696 is true. The service connection of the complainant has been disconnected without intimation is false and hence denied. The complainant does not disclose the actual events happened, while transferring the mobile service connection from post paid to prepaid. The complainant himself approached the opposite party for converting the same to prepaid connection agreeing to provide sufficient documents as ID proof as per TRAI Rules and guidelines. The complainant has provided a driving license copy as his ID proof which was not valid, since the date of expiry of the driving license was not shown in the copy provided by him. Further opposite party stated that the same has duly informed to him and requested to resubmit a fresh copy of an ID proof and the complainant hesitated to do the same.

Admittedly the conversion of the service connection from prepaid to postpaid is based on a written request by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Both parties filed their affidavit. Ext. A1 marked on the side complainant. Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act ? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?

3. If so what is the relief and cost?

Issue No.1

Relying on the decision in General Manager Telecom V.M. Krishnan and Another 2009 (8) SCC 481 held that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved only by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings. The complainant filed the complaint alleging that his mobile phone connection was disconnected by the opposite party without any notice.

In P. Muraleedharan V. The Chief Operating Officer Kerala Circle Tata Indicom and one other dated 4/02/2013 the Hon ble State Commission held that the dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved only by taking recourse arbitration only and found that complaint is not maintainable.

Issues II and III

We perused relevant documents on record. Admittedly the complainant is the subscriber of the mobile number 7736205696. Further opposite party stated that the complainant does not disclose the date of expiry of the driving license was not provided. According to the complainant, the opposite party had transferred the service connection in the name of him before 3 months during post paid connection. The opposite party stated that they had informed the complainant about the insufficient and incomplete document provided by him for converting the connection from postpaid to prepaid. The opposite party had not produced evidence to show that document will be produced at the time of converting the connection from post paid to prepaid. Before three months the complainant has transferred the connection from the name of wife to his name. Thereafter the complainant filed application to convert the connection from postpaid to prepaid. No ducumentary evidence produced by the opposite party to show the TRAI Rules and guidelines. Moreover the opposite party has not produced evidence to show that requested the complainant to resubmit a fresh copy of an ID proof. The complainant has not examined by the opposite party. According to the complainant, he is a business man and due to disconnection of service connection suffered huge mental agony and claimed Rs. 95,000/- as compensation. But the complainant has not produced evidence to prove the business transaction. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite party to show that the complainant has not produced ID proof to them.

Further complainant has not produced evidence to show that balance amount pending in the prepaid connection. According to the complainant the service connection was disconnected, without issuing notice. The dispute in this case is mainly with regard to the disconnection of the service connection without issuing notice. There is a special remedy provided under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding the disputes, the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Rule 413 of Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to telephone rules.

In any case the ratio laid down by the Apex court in respect of the dispute under section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, as is the case with the present dispute as well has to be followed and there should not be any doubt about it.

In Lokesh Parashai V. M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd and others the Honble National Commission held that the revision petition devoid of any merit dismissed holding that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.

Hence we find the complaint is not maintainable before the forum. The complaint dismissed without considering the merits of the case. The parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th day of April, 2013.

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Photocopy of receipt for changing tariff.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost

No Cost Allowed.