Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/980

VIDEOCON TELECOMMUNICATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKESH TIWARI - Opp.Party(s)

SH. AMIT TIWARI

09 May 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 980 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 11.03.2013 passed in C.C.No.95/2012 by the District Commission, Hoshangabad)

 

CIRCLE OFFICE, VIDEOCON TELECOMMUNICATION

LIMITED & ANOTHER.                                                                                  …          APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

                 

MUKESH KUMAR TIWARI & ANOTHER.                                                      …         RESPONDENTS.                                     

 

                                   

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK    :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY          :      MEMBER

                 HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA    :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

 

09.05.2022

 

           Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.

            None for the respondents.

 

As Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik :   

    

                       This appeal filed by the opposite party no.1 and 2/appellants is directed against the order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.95/2012, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties jointly or severally to pay Rs.600/- for not providing services with respect to the disputed hand-set. In addition, Rs.1500/- is awarded towards compensation with further sum of Rs.1500/- towards costs.  Hence this appeal.

3.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and 2/appellants argued that the opposite party no.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the District

-2-

Commission and therefore, their reply could not come on record. Prime submission in the appeal memo filed by the appellants is that the special law overrides the general law and when there is special remedy under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, regarding the telephone bills then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) is barred by implication. However, learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 923/2017 Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd Vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal decided on February 16, 2022 stating that the latest position of law is clear on the point and therefore argued that the disputes with regard to telephone bills can now be adjudicated by the Commissions, constituted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hon’ble Apex Court in Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd (supra) has observed that the definition of expression ‘service’ in Section 2(o) of the Act of 1986 was wide enough to comprehend services of every description including telecom services.

4.                In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd (supra), we conclude that this appeal is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

     (Dr. Monika Malik)   (Dr.Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)         

     Presiding Member           Member                     Member