Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1112/2012

Gutam Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Reliance Communications Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./1112/2012                                                          Dated:

In the matter of:

MR. GAUTAM KUMAR,

S/o Sh. Ashok Prasad,

F-44,1^st Floor, Krishna Gali,

Kotla Mubarakpur,]

Delhi-110003

            ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

BRANCH MANAGER/GENERAL MANAGER,

Reliance Communication Ltd.,

6^th Floor, Vijaya Building,

Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001

 

MANAGING DIRECTOR,

RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD.,

“H” Block, 1^st Floor, DAKC,

Navi Mumbaia=400709

 

 

                   .... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

MEMBER : NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

 

          Complainant was the regular customer of the OP and was availing pre=paid connection facility of the OP for the last 4 years on his mobile vide pre-paid connection No. 9311729353 and was working as Manager Finance with Capital Trust Ltd.

          It is alleged by the complainant that he migrated from pre-paid connection to post-paid connection under bull plan name “SUPNLTDONNET440” in the month of June 2012 after making the payment of Rs. 250/- on 20/6/12. It is stated by the complainant that he had provided his office address as his billing address.

          It is alleged by the complainant that he had received his first monthly bill for a sum of Rs. 220/- and the payment of same was made by his before due date.

          It is alleged by the complainant that after due dated i.e. 25/7/12 his outstation was barred, despite making the payment well before due date on 10/7/12, when he enquired about the same from the OP, he came to know that he had an outstanding of Rs. 35,000/- due of the other employee Mr. Ajay Kumar who left the job from Capital Trust Ltd. two and half year back.

          It is alleged by the complainant that even after various correspondences through e-mails and repeated reminders despite bare assurance nothing has been done by OP to resolve this issue.

          It is alleged by the complainant that despite making total payment of Rs. 7121/- against the aforesaid postpaid connection against the various bills issued by OP for the month of July 2012 to Jan, 2014, the OP had failed to resume the outgoing facility till date.  Hence the complainant appeared in this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.

          Notice of the complainant was sent to the OP through Regd. AD Post for 2/4/13, On l3/6/13 Mr. Narayan Joshi appeared on behalf of OP and collected the copy of complaint. Despite several opportunity of failed to placed on record its WS and as such, it was proceeded ex-parte on 4/6/14. Complainant filed his ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint.

          Complainant has placed on record copies of the bills, copies of payment receipt, copies of e-mails exchanged between the parties.

We have heard arguments advanced at bar and have persued the record.

          In General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan , : 2009(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 8 : 2009(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 500  : 2009(8) SCC 481 : 2010 AIR (SC) 90 relied upon by learned counsel for the OP the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:

         

          "6-7. In our opinion when 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 Telegraph Act reads as under :-

          "S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes :-

          (1) 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.

          (2) 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 provides 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.

          8. It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach.

9. In Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, (1995)2 SCC 479 it was held that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment."

 

Section 4 of the Act gives exclusive privileged to the Central government in respect of Telegraphs, the power to grant licences within India. Section 3 (1AA) defines, in short, the word "Telegraph" as given below:

“ telegraph” means any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire,  visual or other electro-magnetic emissions, Radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or  magnetic  means”.

The complaint is made in respect of the landline telephone instrument and mobile phone which comes within the definition of Telegraph stated before.

The term "Telegraph Authority" as defined in Section 3 (6) mean the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs, and includes any officer empowered by him to perform all or any of the functions of the Telegraph authority under this Act. Therefore, the word "Telegraph authority" includes the officers empowered by Director-General of post and Telegraph also. The "Telegraph officer" is defined in Section 3 (2) of the Act, and includes the person employed temporarily or permanently in connection with Telegraph established, maintained or worked by the Central government or by a person licensed under this Act. Therefore, by virtue of this definition of Telegraph officer a person employed permanently or temporarily with licensed person under the Act is also a Telegraph officer. So, by implication, the licensed service providers like the OP would come within the definition of "Telegraph authority" and the provisions of Section 7B of the Act are applicable between the disputes of said service provider and the person claiming deficiency in service against him, with regard to Telegraph lines or Telegraph, dues, etc.

 

M. Krishnan's case was followed in another case titled Jayaprakash, Panjeta versus Vodafone ESSAR South Ltd and another in the Revision Petition No. 2365/2011 decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 30/4/2014 and it was held that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court was binding and the Revision Petition filed against the OP company was dismissed. In Lokesh Parashar versus M/S, Idea Cellular Ltd the Revision Petition number 3780 of 2011 decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New  Delhi  on  20/4/2012, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, while dismissing the revision petition, following M. Krishnan's case (supra), has also indicated that in another case of Parkash Verma versus Idea cellular Ltd and another the Revision Petition number 1703 of 2010 was dismissed by it on 21/5/2010 and the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner before the Apex Court was dismissed on 1/10/2010 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, M. Krishnan's case (supra), is consistently being followed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and we are bound to obey the directions and the observations in these cases and so are compelled to hold that the present complaint is hit by Section 7B of the Telegraph  Act.

`

In view of the above, the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP is dismissed for want of jurisdiction of this Forum. One true copy each of this order be sent to the concerned parties by post.

 

This order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). 

The file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

Order Pronounced on                                       .

 

 

 

 

                                                                                            (S K SARVARIA)

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

                                     

 

 

                                                                                       (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                                                                                                                                 MEMBER