BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.33/2011
Dated this the 29th day of May 2012.
( 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 case of the complainant is that complainant is running a very reputed consultancy by name Navtech International at Hamriyahee zones Sharjah. In connection with the nature of complainant’s work and also to enable the customers of the complainant who are spread all over the world to contact him over the phone, the complainant had availed an international roaming SIM card connection of the first opposite party. The number which was provided to the complainant was 9895814900. At the time of availing the connection the sales executive of the first opposite party had made the complainant believe that the first opposite party are providing very best service to its customers and for which the first opposite party has set up customer service centre from where the customers of the first opposite party are provided easy, the best and the quickest services. Only by believing the words of the sales executive of the first opposite party the complainant availed the above said mobile connection for consideration. While the complainant was using the said roaming connection, the connection was disconnected on 28.03.2010 without any reason. The complainant thought that probably it may be a mistake committed by the staff of first opposite party because there was no reason for the disconnection of the above said mobile connection. The said connection was recharged by the complainant by payingRs.600/- from Cochin on 02.01.2010. The last date on which the SIM card was used by the complainant was on 06.01.2010 and again on 27.02.2010 the complainant had received a SMS from Airtel. By the time complainant was at UAE. After the said connection was disconnected by the first opposite party the complainant was totally isolated from his customers who are having the said mobile number of the petitioner only. Due to the disconnection, the complainant’s business was effected very adversely, as his customers could not contact him in time, as the said connection was illegally as well as negligently disconnected by the opposite party. Immediately the complainant registered complaint through E.mail with customer care centre of first opposite party and third opposite party at Calicut. On 31.05.2010 third opposite party personally called the complainant and informed that the disconnected number is being activated on first June 2010. But it was not activated. Hence on second June 2010 the complainant again contacted third opposite party of the customer card and informed the fact that his number was not activated.
Since the above said SIM connection of the complainant was illegally and negligently disconnected and the balance charge was misappropriated by the opposite parties, the complainant had caused a lawyer notice dtd. 19.06.2010 seeking compensation towards damages , loss and the in convenience sustained to the complainant due to the above said illegal and negligent act of the opposite parties. So far we are not willing to compensate for that. Hence complainant is seeking relief against opposite parties to direct them to compensate Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs jointly and severally to the complainant.
Opposite party after receiving notice entered in appearance and filed their version stating that the above said petition is not at all maintainable either in law or facts. The decision quoted in the petition that is 2009(8)SCC481 has no application in the above said case. The dictum laid down in the ruling is applicable not to the opposite party No.1 a the opposite party will not come under the preview of the “telegraph authority” under Indian Telegraph Act. The above said case the section 7 B of Indian Telegraph act has no application at all. Section 7 B of the Indian telegraph Act read as “Except as other wise expressly provided in this act, if any disputes concerning any telegraph line appliances or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit, the line appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the disputes shall be determined by arbitration and shall for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the central Government either specially for the determination of that disputes or generally for the determination of disputes under this section”. So the section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act is applicable only in respect of the disputes between telegraph authority and the person. The telegraph authority is defined in Section 3(6) of the Indian Telegraph Act as Director General of post and Telegraphs, and includes any officer empowered by him to perform all or any of the functions of the telegraph authority under this act. Considering this, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration.
Whether complaint is maintainable? If so what is the relief and cost.
Opposite parties raised the issue regarding the maintainability of telephone case . Heard both sides. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties argued by supporting the decision of Prakash Varma V/s.Idea Cellular Limited 2010. On hearing of both sides and also on perusing the records we find that the question that comes up for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable .The learned counsel for the opposite party has relied on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission . On perusal of said decisions it is found that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that any disputes between subscriber and the Telegraph authority can be resolved by taking re course to arbitration proceedings only. Hon’ble National Commission also has followed same view in Prakash varma V/s.Idea Cellular limited. It is found that Hon’ble Supreme court have taken a view that disputes between the subscriber and the service provider with regards to telegraph connection can not be adjudicated by the consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Under these circumstance complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 29th day of May 2012.
Date of filing:25.01.2011.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
