Delhi

New Delhi

CC/52/2014

P.Samraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

-

26 Apr 2017

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./52/2014                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

SH. P. SAMRAJ,

Flat No.2, Sector-A,

Pocket-C, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070

        ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

Through Proper Officer

Having its office at :

6^th Floor, Vijaya Building,

Barakhamba Road,

NewDelhi-110001.

 

ALSO AT:

 

Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,

Nvi Mumbai-400710,

Maharashtra

       .... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

MEMBER : NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against Reliance Communication alleging the deficiency in service its part. It is alleged by the complainant that since 17.07.2003 he was using the Reliance Mobile no. 9312701683  and the same was never disconnected due to non-payment of the bills. It is alleged by the complainant that he was out of the country from 22^nd November 2013 to December 2013 from India to Australia and New Zealand. When he reached the airport and started making local calls from airport as its alleged mobile connection he received a recorded message saying that outgoing calls has been disconnected, and as such he visited the Web World at Green Park  and lodged complaint regarding the disconnection of mobile services, the officials of op informed him that as the bill was not generated they are enable to explain the reason of disconnection. As such , complainant made a complaint to the customer care  centre of OP Co. about disconnection , and the official of op informed him that the disconnection was due to the non-payment of the due amount  of Rs. 5014/- for using internet connection and other services. It is further alleged by the complainant that whenever he was in New Zealand and Australia and tried to open the internet , the message was “ WEB PAGE IS NOT AVAILABLE “ .

It is further alleged by the complainant that on 15^th December he received the bill and the same was paid by him on 16.12.2013 , but even after making the payment of bill his services was not restored , he again visited the Reliance Web World and enquired about the same, the official there informed him that the disconnection was not due to internet usage but due to non-payment of the bill due on mobile no.  9309495963 for a sum of Rs. 5939. It is alleged by the complainant that he had not using the mobile no. 9309495963 ever since inception. It is alleged by complainant that he wrote various letters to the Op co. regarding the disconnection of mobile services by it , but no reply was ever received from it, rather the another bill of Rs. 1459.56 was issued by the OP, despite the fact that the outgoing calls was disconnected. It is alleged by the complainant that the arbitrary raising of the bills by the Op despite the facts that the mobile services were disconnected by it, amounts to deficiency in services on its part. Hence this complaint.

Notice of complaint was sent to the OP thorough post , since none appeared of OP despite service , it was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte on 13.03.2014 .

Complainant filed his   ex parte evidence by way of affidavit, wherein, he has corroborated the content of his complaint.

 We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused 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 mobile connection ,Services of which was disconnected by OP, which comes within the definition of Telegraph stated above .

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

 

 

                                             (H M VYAS)                                     (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                               MEMBER                                                  MEMBER