BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 820/2011 against C.C.No.442/2009, Dist. Forum-II,Visakhapatnam.
Between:
The Chief Executive Officer,
Tata Tele Services Ltd.,
Hyderabad. …Appellant/
Opp.party no.1
And
1. Mr.Golla Sudharshana Rao,
S/o.Krishna Rao, Hindu,
Aged 42 years, Satyavaram Village,
Payakaraopeta Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District . … Respondent/
Complainant
2. Creative Enterprises,
C/o.P.Madhusudhana Rajagopal,
Shop No.1, K.T.R.Complex,
Balaji Road, Tuni,
East Godavari District. …Respondent/
Opp.party no.2
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. C.Niranjan Rao
Counsel for the respondents : Notice served-R1
Notice returned-R2
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.
Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member).
***
This appeal is directed against the order dt. 25.3.2011 of the District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam made in C.C.No.442/2009.
The brief case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of Tele Communication Services provided by opposite parties 1 and 2. He obtained a mobile connection bearing no.9247733323 from the opposite parties, but the cell tower located in the village Satyavaram, to which he belongs, was not functioning and that the said fact was taken to the notice of opposite parties by way of submitting the complaints, that too many a time, but there was no response from the opposite parties. Due to that inaction, on the part of the opposite parties, in turn made him to suffer as well as another 2000 consumers of that village and it further resulted in loss of business for all of them since they are traders in Beetel Leaves and in addition to that he is a broker in the trade of Beetel Leaves and as such, he suffered financial loss of Rs.10,000/- per month and that there was no possibility to carry out his business in Beetel Leaves because of deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties for not getting the concerned cell tower properly functioning. Hence the complaint, seeking direction to the opposite parties to take steps for working of their cell tower besides to direct them to pay damages and compensation for loss and agony suffered by him.
Resisting the complaint, the opposite party no.1 filed counter/written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and interalia contended that the complainant has implicated the Chief Executive Officer of Tata Tele Services Ltd., Hyderabad and that in a case filed against the company, the Chief Executive Officer cannot be sued but the Chief Executive Officer was impleaded in this case and in that view of the matter, the case has to be dismissed. While issuing the telephone connection to the complainant, he was advised to approach the Customer Care Services by toll free telephone no.12524, in case of any service problem and other assistance that the company can provide to the customers. The complainant has never approached the Customer Care Department with any complaint till the date. On receipt of the complaint, the call details of the customer were verified and it is noticed that there is good usage of services. Thus there is no deficiency in service of the company.
Second opposite party filed counter/written version contending that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This opposite party further contended that it is only an authorised distributor of Tata Indi-Com Mobile phones and as such, its business is only to sell the mobiles of opposite party no.1 company, as well as, recharge the cards and the grievance of the complainant is not against its services in as much as his complaint is with regard to network problem and as such it has nothing to do with that aspect and thereby it is not a necessary party to the complaint. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
Both sides filed their evidence affidavits.
The complainant got marked Exs.A1 to A4 and opposite party no.1 marked Ex.B1. The Commissioner report filed by B.Srinivas Rao, Advocate Commissioner is marked as Ex.C1.
Upon hearing the counsel for both parties and on consideration of material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, in part directing the opposite party no.1 to take all necessary steps to increase the capacity of Repeater Station located in the village of the complainant and thereby to increase the signal frequency of that Repeater Station and if for any reasons, there is no possibility to increase its capacity, to recall mobile connection of the complainant. Opposite party no.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant besides costs of Rs.2,500/-. The complaint against opposite party no.2 is dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party no.1 filed the above appeal contending that the order of the District Forum is contrary to law and facts of the case. That the District Forum failed to consider that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in respect of the services rendered by Telecom Operators. That the District Forum has totally failed to consider the documentary evidence under Ex.B1 showing the call details during the period from April,2009 to September 2009. The said document was totally ignored by the District Forum and passed the impugned order basing on the Commissioner’s report, which is totally against the facts of the case. That the District Forum failed to discuss the objections on the Commissioner’s report filed by the appellant/opposite party no.1.That the District Forum failed to consider that the complaint is filed against the Chief Executive Officer of Tata Tele Services Ltd., who is a employee of company and he is not liable for the alleged deficiency in service. That the District Forum failed to consider that none of the customers of the opposite parties have made the complaint in respect of not working of the cell tower or repeater station of appellant/opp.party no.1 and the complainant has totally failed to establish that any of the customers of the appellant has suffered deficiency in service and that the District Forum has also failed to consider that there is no possibility of any negligence in providing services to the complainant herein and further there is no suffering of loss in the business and the evidence produced by the appellant/opposite party no.1 is not considered by the lower court and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Heard both sides.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact that the complainant in this case has obtained a cell phone connection from the opposite parties and thereby, he became a customer for the Telecom Services provided by the company of opposite party no.1. The first and foremost contention of the complainant is that he could not use his cell phone due to lack of signals from the network of opposite party no.1. It is also the contention of the complainant that there was no power back up to the cell tower located in the village Satyavaram and as a result of it, there was no relay of signals from that cell tower and as a natural consequence, he could not use his cell phone. The opposite parties have vehemently denied the allegation made by the complainant.
During the course of enquiry, the District Forum appointed an Advocate Commissioner,who visited the village of the complainant i.e. Satyavaram and filed Ex.C1 report. It appears that basing on Ex.C1 report, the District Forum allowed the complaint. As seen from Ex.C1 report, there is a Repeater Station located in that village but not a Cell Tower and that the Repeater Station relays signals which emanated from the cell tower located in the town Tuni in the District of East Godavari. The Commissioner in his report has categorically mentioned that signal is available for all kinds of mobiles under the cell tower. However,the Commissioner without any basis has observed that the signals are in good levels upto 200 mts. in the direction of Antena and beyond that levels, the signals are very poor/weak. However, if there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1, the aggrieved customers should approach the Customers Care Department with any complaint. Admittedly the complainant did not approach the Customer Care Department with his complaint and filed the present complaint before the District Forum.
Further, Ex.B1 statement showing the call details during the period from April,2009 to September,2009 regarding the cell phone of the complainant clearly establishes the fact that the complainant has used the mobile and his mobile has got signals by which he has made several calls to various phones. As per the said statement, the entire details of the calls made data, time and duration of the calls made were mentioned,which clearly show that the complainant has used the mobile without any interruption. In view of the said document, the contention of the complainant that he has not received the signals from the Tower of the opposite party is totally wrong and incorrect. The District Forum has not at all considered Ex.B1 statement while allowing the complaint. The said document was totally ignored by the District Forum. Had the District Forum considered the said document , it would have found otherwise .
As per Section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act, any dispute concerning any telegraph line, the appliance, apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, the same shall be referred to an arbitrator and the same shall be decided by an arbitrator. In view of the said provision, the District Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute in respect of the disputes regarding telephones. We are fortified in this view by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom vs. M.Krishnan and anr. in Civil Appeal no.7687 of 2004 . In view of the above judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as such, the order by the District Forum considering the said provision of law is liable to be set aside.
The complaint is filed against the Chief Executive Officer of Tata Tele Services Ltd., Hyderabad as opposite party no.1. He is only an employee of Tata Tele Services Ltd., Hyderabad. The contention of the opposite party no.1 is that he cannot be made liable for alleged deficiency in service. Further, the Chief Executive Officer cannot be sued or to be sued against a company which was incorporated under Companies Act. On this ground also the present complaint is not maintainable .The District Forum has not considered this aspect also.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1. The impugned order of the District Forum is therefore not sustainable under law and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside . The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Pm* Dt. 14.11.2012
