BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sunny Chopra s/o Sh. Roshan Lal Chopra r/o H.No.39, Dashmesh Nagar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  M/s Vodafone Essar India Pvt. Ltd., #C131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali, Tehsil & District Mohali.

2.  Aggarwal Provision Store, Booth No. 3 & 4, Sector 39, Chandigarh.

..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.H.P.S. Kochhar, for the complainant.

Sh.Ankush Kalia, Advocate for OP-1.

OP-2 exparte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant bought a prepaid sim card bearing mobile No.98885-29829 from OP-2 on 16.8.2005 which was activated by OP-1 and at his old address.  Suddenly on 30.4.2010 the mobile stopped working.  Upon enquiry it was revealed that the aforesaid mobile No. was issued to another person (lady) in post paid connection without his information or consent. On 3.5.2010 and 16.5.2010 he visited the OPs, and even sent emails, but they did not take any action.  On 17.5.2010 OP-1 issued a sim card to him which was pre and post paid and they assured that it would become pre paid but the same also stopped working on 24.5.2010.  The complainant again was forced to contact the OPs and after a gap of 24 days the services were again started on 18.6.2010 but the proper prepaid facilities were not started which were started on 10.10.2010 only and that too after the efforts made by the complainant. It has been alleged that due to the aforesaid acts of the OPs, the complaint, who was a student of MCA, had to suffer mentally and physically.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

2.             In their written reply OP-1 did not dispute the factual matrix.  It has been admitted that the mobile number of the complainant was converted into a postpaid connection in some other name due to inadvertence, however, as soon as the same came to their notice the mobile connection was restored back in complainant’s name and the services were restored. It has been averred that the services of the complainant were duly active from the OPs end and the GPS internet services were to be activated by the complainant on his own handset.  It has been denied that the complaint suffered any mental harassment or torture because of the OPs. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             OP-2 did not appear despite due service, hence they were proceeded against exparte. 

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant as well as for OP-1 and have also perused the record.

6.             The OP-1 while referring to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India styled as General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan & Another, Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009 submitted that in view of the above said authority, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. 

So before adjudicating the matter on merits, it has become necessary to decide as to whether this Forum, established under the Consumer Protection Act, has jurisdiction to entertain the disputes relating to mobile connections. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above said judgment has held that under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the disputes concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus are required to be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government.

7.           Therefore, in view of the above cited judgment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute.

8.           Keeping the above foregoing findings, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The complainant may seek redressal of his grievance before the competent authority as per the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                            Sd/-                                   sd/-