BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/23
Sri. Kasthala Durga Rao,Aswapuram 507 116
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd.,New Delhi 110 030
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 23rd day of March, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.23 of 2009 Between: Kasthala Durga Rao, s/o.late Syamala Rao, Aswapuram-507116, Khammam District, Andhra Pradesh. Complainant And M/s.Bharti Airtel Ltd., Qutab Ambience (at Qutab Minor), H-5/12, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110030, rep. by Chief-Regulatory Affairs. Opposite party. This C.C. is coming on before this Forum for final hearing; the complainant appeared in person; in the presence of Sri.G.Madhava Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Forum passed the following: - ORDER (Per Sri.Vijay Kumar, President) 1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a prepaid customer/consumer/holder of mobile connection of Airtel Telecom Service Provider bearing SIM card o.9949529548 and the complainant has been given and using Internet services of the opposite party for the last two years. At the time of issue of SIM card, the complainant charged Rs.15/- per day for browsing of Internet facility with unlimited access and without any rental charges. All of a sudden after attracting mobile customers/consumers of other companies in the field of Telecom industry, the opposite party has withdrawn the existing scheme without giving any public notice to the customers/consumers of its intention. The opposite party has resorted to price manipulation by increasing Internet manipulation to 50 KB @ 30 paise with effect from16-12-2008. This will cost the consumer about Rs.1200/- per day. This is unbearable price increase to the consumer. It is picking of pockets of consumers and doing gambling and innocent consumers became loosers. The complainant who is paying Rs.15/- per day has to pay Rs.1200/- from 16-12-2008. This amounts to unfair trade practice and exploitation of the consumers. Because of the decision of the opposite party, the complainant is put to lot of hardship and other consumers in general have been put to hardship. The company is making abundant profits by exploitation of customers. The complainant has purchased computer by incurring huge amount by believing the scheme of the opposite party. The complainant has subscribed to net on phone, services on his phone @ 99/- per month. Without any sort of notice, the opposite party has illegally debited Rs.2,000/- from the credit balance held with the opposite party. Without downloading any contents, illegally debits have been noticed. In this way, the opposite party is looting the finances of the customers. The opposite party has taken unilateral decision in imposing heavy burden on customers by violating the terms and conditions. There is no rational behind such hasty decision for such abnormal price increase. The opposite party services have become like pick pocketers, resorting to large scale looting of general public. The opposite party is indulging exploitation of customers by price manipulation. The company earned Rs.20,00,000/- during the year 2003-2004 and earned Rs.6,467 crores in the year 2007-08 net profit within a span of 4 years and has given a statement showing the price increase by the opposite party. Hence, the complaint to direct the opposite party not to withdraw the existing scheme and not to introduce the new scheme by causing huge financial loss to the customers and to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. 2. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party represented through its counsel, filed counter and denied all the averments made in the complaint. In the counter, it is admitted that the complainant is the customer of opposite party, except this all the other averments have been denied in toto. It is further submitted that the price hike as contended by the complainant has been informed to the complainant prior to the change of rates of Internet services. It is further submitted that the complainant has nothing to do with the profit and loss of the opposite party company and the complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief much less to the relief of compensation as claimed in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 3. On behalf of the, written arguments along with the case laws filed and submitted the documents as follows; i) Broacher issued by the opposite party No.2 ii) Complaint recorded in Google search iii) Statement showing the price increases from time to time. 4. On behalf of the opposite party, some of the case laws have been filed. 5. Perused the oral and documentary evidence and also respective case laws relied upon by the respective parties, now the point that arose for consideration is, 1. Whether the District Consumers Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? 2. To what relief? POINTS: 6. The crux of the complaint is that the complainant, who is paying Rs.15/- per day, has to pay Rs.1200/- per day with effect from 16-12-2008 for browsing Internet facility and this is a clear case of unfair trade practice. Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to mention here that the Apex court has decided in its order in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004, dt.1-9-2009, wherein the Supreme Court has held that there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of Telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Section 7(B)of the Telegraphic Act reads as under, i) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section. ii) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court. Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provide that all services relating to Telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules. Apart from this, the learned counsel for opposite party has relied upon the decision of Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed order on 6-10-2009, wherein their lordships held that Section 7(B) of the Telegraphic Act reads as under, i) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section. ii) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court. 7. In this view of the facts of case, we cannot proceed with the complaint. 8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with an observation that the complainant is at liberty to prosecute the matter under the said Telegraph Act before the appropriate Forum. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 23rd day of March, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM Appendix of Evidence -Nil- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
