PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

1.                The brief facts of the complaint are Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Complainant filed this complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Opposite Party, M/s Bharti Airtel Limited. The OP is a company providing wireless broadband, GSM telecom services and other services, with its registered office at New Delhi and carries on its business throughout the territory of India. The Complainant is a Subscriber and availing two services provided by the OP as following:

i)          Post-paid mobile services (which is a corporate connection)

ii)         Internet access  (Blackberry Enterprises)

2.                     These two services are provided under separate contracts and are billed separately. From the date of subscription, the Complainant chose the option for itemized paper bill.

3.                     The complainant suffered humiliation due to bad conduct and deficiency in services of the OP. The complainant interacted with the number of representatives of OP, several emails and SMS correspondences between Complainant and OP took place. He also, approached the appellate authority and the National Escalation Team but, no avail. Hence, he filed the Complaint for deficiency in service by the OP.

4.                     Heard the complainant in person and he is a practicing advocate. He submits that, his grievance and claim both are genuine, hence he want to exercise the remedy through provisions of Consumer Protection Act. On perusal of entire file, revealed that, the complaint runs in to 21 pages.

5.                The Complainant claimed the compensation under the prayer clause under 11 headings( a to k). Some major claims he prayed are reproduced as below:

a) Direct the OP to issue large scale and nationwide corrective advertising for at least one year, be spending an amount of Rs.100 crores or any scuh other amount that this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in view of the large consumer base and wide geographical network of the OP, for misleading the market with its false claims about having a simple 3-step consumer grievance Redressal mechanism and the availability of paper bills for the consumers who do not voluntarily opt for e-bills.

b) Direct that such corrective advertising be issued separately and not be clubbed with any other advertisement by the OP, which are aimed for its brand/services promotion.

c) Direct the OP to provide a compliance report with details of such corrective advertising to the Hon’ble Commission at such time as the Hon’ble Commission directs.

d) Direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.1 crore to the Complainant in view of its intentional and repeating deficiencies in service, it’s shocking disregard for the law, the tremendous harassment it caused over a prolonged period, and the consequent losses suffered by the Complainant.

6.                The Consumer Fora are meant for Summery Trial, therefore, adjudication of the present complainant for the claim more than Rs.100 Crores need to examine voluminous documents and evidence. The prayer of complainant appears to be beyond imagination and highly inflated one. Hence, this much amount claimed by him can be granted by the Civil Court only.  This will require sufficient evidence.  A number of witnesses are required in this case.  The case cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits only.  All the complicated and intricate questions of law put forward by the complainant cannot be decided in a summary manner.  The examination of witnesses and their cross-examination is not permissible under the C.P. Act, 1986.The allegations must stand proved in accordance with law.

7.                I put reliance upon recent authorities of  the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pesi Dady Shroff Vs. Boehringer Ingetheim Denmark & Anr., Civil Appeal No.9453 of 2013, filed against  this Commission’s  judgment  and  order  passed in Consumer Complaint  No.164,  dated 10.07.2013,  wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court  was pleased to  make the  following   observations :-

“Leaving the question of law open, as to whether in such a fact situation, provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are applicable, it is open to the appellant to approach the Civil Court for the simple reason that for the purchase price of Rs.4-5 lakhs in 2003, he has claimed a sum of Rs.73.35 crores.  Such a claim can be adjudicated only after the assessment of evidence, etc., before the Civil Court and, therefore, it is a fit case where, even if the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is applicable, the appellant must approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. With these observations, the civil appeal is disposed of”.

8.                   In Synco  Industries  Vs. State Bank  of  Bikaner & Jaipur and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 1,  the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :-

“3. Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of rupees fifteen crores  and for an additional sum of rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses.  It is, therefore, in any event,  not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion.  The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the civil  court.  This is an appropriate claim for a civil court to decide and, obviously, was not filed before a civil court to start with because, before the consumer forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay the court fees.  This, in that sense, is an abuse of the  process of the consumer forum”.

9.                   The recent judgment of this commission in Complaint No. 235/2014 Dr.Uttamkumar Samata Vs Bharati Airtel Limited decided on 1/8/2014, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M.Malik held that;

  Although, the pleadings are quite impressive, yet the facts are yet to be discussed,  down the ground.  It is pertinent to know  that  cross  examination of  the witnesses  is  the life/blood of  our  legal  system.  It is  the  only  way,  a Judge can decide whom to trust and  an answer,  during cross-examination, may  wreck  one’s  case. It is painfully apparent that it is impossible to gauge the real issue.   This  Commission  can go into the subject,  only skin deep.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

10.          In  view  of   the above  discussion  and  rulings, I,  therefore, dismiss  this  complaint,  with  liberty  to  the complainant  to  approach the Civil Court as per  law. He can take benefit of the decision rendered in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583.