Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.2.2011 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs to contact the complainant and restore the Vodafone connection bearing No.9888200505 in his name within 07 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The OPs were also directed to pay to the complainant jointly and severally Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing him mental agony, harassment and loss, alongwith Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which they would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith penal interest @18% p.a. 2. The complainant (now respondent) took a Vodafone connection bearing No.9888200505 from the OPs (now appellant) and regularly paid the bills. However, on 20.8.2010, the OPs unnecessarily disconnected the mobile connection without any intimation, due to which the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. Upon enquiries, the complainant was told that his mobile phone was disconnected as it was having the same billing address as that of mobile No.9988888050, which was in the name of Yogesh Sareen. It was further stated that the outstanding amount against the latter mobile was cleared on 16.7.2010, but still the said mobile connection was not reconnected, despite a number of visits, to the OPs. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. The OPs, in their written reply, stated that the mobile phone of the complainant, was disconnected, because there was an outstanding amount of Rs.1198/- against the brother of the complainant. It was further stated that the brother of the complainant was duly informed vide letter dated 16.7.2010 to pay the arrears of bills, but he failed to do so. It was further stated that, as per the Telegraph Rules, the OPs were within their rights, to disconnect the telephone connection, as there was commonness of usage between the complainant and his brother. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, or they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint,and passed the order, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellant/OP . 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, since there was a dispute, between the parties, with regard to the outstanding amount against the mobile phone, in question, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & anr,(2009)8SCC481 ,Prakash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr. Revision Petition No.1703 decided on 21.5.2010 by the National Commission, and Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.24577/2010 titled as Prakash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr. decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 1.10.2010,the Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as a special remedy is provided Under Section-7B of the Telegraph Act, by way of arbitration. 9. On the other hand, the duly authorized representative Ms.Prabhdeep Kaur, on behalf of respondent NO.1/complainant, however, submitted that the District Forum had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant, and the duly authorized representative for respondent NO.1, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted , for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. There was a dispute, with regard to the bill amount of the Mobile Phone, in question. The principle of law, laid down in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & anr,(2009)8SCC481 was to the effect, that the District Forum had got no jurisdiction, in case, where there is dispute regarding the telephone bill and the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act,1986, by implication, is barred. The Consumer has to avail of a special remedy as provided U/s 7B of the Telegraph Act . Thus, the principle of law, laid down, in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & anr’s case (supra) was relied upon in Prakash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr.’s case (supra), by the National commission while dismissing the revision petition. The Special Leave to Appeal was filed against the order dated 21.5.2010, passed by the National Commission in Prakash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr.’s case (supra),which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 1.10.2010. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to this case. This Commission is bound by the law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the National Commission. Under these circumstances, it is held that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The order of the District Forum, is therefore, held to be illegal, being without jurisdiction. 11. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the District Forum, is set aside. The complainant/respondent, however, shall be at liberty to avail of the remedy under Section7B of the Telegraph Act, in accordance with law. 12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 13. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
