COMPLAINT FILED:14.12.2009

DISPOSED ON:15.10.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

15^th  DAY OF OCTOBER-2011

  PRESENT :-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                             PRESIDENT

                     SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA                MEMBER                   

                     SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA                         MEMBER

                             COMPLAINT NO.2950/2009

O R D E R

Sri.B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against the opponent (herein after refer to as OP) to pay sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to justify the unauthorized bill for the month of August-2009 which the complainant has not at all used and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony along with costs of the proceedings on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

2.    The case of the complainants to be stated in brief:

              The complainant is a company engaged in Civil Engineering and Construction project and also runways and other infrastructures, multistoried buildings and other buildings. The company is having Airtel Connections for their Employer and Employees for more than 100 connections across the country. OP offered a black berry plan to the coordinator Mr.Mayil by believing the representative of OP got connected the black berry plan under 499 plan and their SIM Card No.9880823676, 9880823677 and 9880844707. Normally the OP used to charge less than Rs.2,000/- as per the usage under Black Berry Plan. The complainant used to get average bill amount of Rs.1500 to 2000. The complainant by seeing the above bill requested the OP to change the plan under 899 plan, which plan is unlimited, the OP after receipt of the letter immediately charged exorbitantly crossing the credit limit of Rs.16,000/- of the complainant company. But all of sudden for the month of August 2009, the bill amount was Rs.12,885.43, Rs.8,328.01 and Rs.22,936.60 all together amounts to Rs.44,150.04 which is exorbitantly charged by the OP. The complainant immediately contacted the customer care executive and reported about the unjustified and unauthorized bill charged by the OP, the complainant registered the complaint numbered as 28292398, the executive promised to look into the matter and rectify the bill, the complainant even after sent many mails to the OP about the unjustified bill and their reply through e-mail is not satisfactory to the complainant.   OP disconnected the outgoing and incoming calls of the complainant-company for nonpayment of the bill. OP has not rectified the unjustified bill even after several reminders, personal visit. OP is guilty of gross deficiency of service, the complainant deserves to be compensated for Rs.1,00,000/- each for making to run up and down several times to the OP’s Office. Hence the complaint.

3.In the version filed the main defence of the OP is that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, in view of the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 in the matter between the General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another reported in AIR-2010 SC 90. As per the said judgment, since the dispute raised by the complainant is between the subscriber and telecom service provider, the remedy available for the complainant is under Section-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act, on this count itself the present complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

4. In view of the preliminary objection regarding maintainability taken up by OP. Arguments were heard on the same.

5. Point for our consideration is:

                         Whether the complaint is not maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 90 General Manager Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another?

6. We record our finding in affirmative:

R E A S O N S

   The main grievance of the complainant is the bill amount of the mobile connections provided by OP in Sim Card Nos.9880823676, 9880823677 and 9880844707 for the month of Aubust-2009 was exorbitant to the tune of Rs.44,150.04. OP has not rectified the defect of the said bill in spite of several reminders and personal visit. OP has disconnected the outgoing and incoming calls of these mobiles. Thus it becomes clear that the dispute between the parties is with regard to the telephone bill relating to the mobile connection and disconnection of the service of the mobile for nonpayment of bills which squarely falls within the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SC 90. In the said judgment their lordships have ruled that the special law overrides the general law and when there is a special remedy provided in Section-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. In the said case, the dispute was regarding nonpayment of telephone bill for the telephone connection provided to the respondent No.1 and for the said nonpayment of the bill the telephone connection was disconnected. Aggrieved against the said disconnection the respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the District Forum Kozhikode. By order dt.26.11.2001, the Consumer District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to re-connect the telephone connection to the respondent No.1 and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. The Writ Petition and Writ Appeal filed against the said Order before the High Court of Kerala were also dismissed. The Appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by Special leave. Thus the facts of the case in hand are similar to the facts wherein the Apex Court held that when there is a special remedy provided in Section-7B of the India Telephone Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bills then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the present complaint filed is not maintainable as this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.

Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.  

 (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 15^th day of October-2011.)                              

MEMBER                          MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

Cs.