Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. The aforementioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 21.7.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum- II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.1339 of 2008 filed by Sh.Raghujeet Singh Madan was allowed in the following terms ; i) A compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and pain suffered by the Complainant on account of the ineffectiveness and non-functioning of the Vodafone Mobile Connection Network at the office-cum-residence of the Complainant. ii) The Ops shall pay the a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as litigation cost. The order was directed to be complied with by OPs within a period of one month of the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they were made liable to pay interest @15% p.a. on Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.11.2008 till the date of realization. 2. In fact appeal No.461/2009 has been filed by Vodafone Essar South Ltd.- OP for setting aside the impugned order whereas appeal No.452/2009 has been filed by Sh. Raghujeet Singh Madan, complainant for enhancement of compensation. Since, in both these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, so, we are deciding these appeals by this common judgment. 3. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 4. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of these two appeals may be recapitulated thus ; The Complainant who is a practicing Advocate had purchased Vodafone Mobile connection bearing No.99884-46614 from the OPs and used the same about 11 months. The Complainant shifted his office at H.No.5889, Modern Housing Complex Manimajra in November, 2007 and faced tremendous hardships on the professional as well as personal level on account of absolutely ‘No Network Coverage (Zero Coverage)’ on the mobile phone set, whereas mobile phones working on other service providers were working absolutely fine but the mobile phones being operated upon Vodafone connections were non-functional although there was clear cut technical feasibility for proper network coverage of the same. The complainant made repeated written complaints to OPs about the non-working of the mobile phone but no reply was given. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to OPs for providing 100% network coverage in his office premises situated at H.No.5889, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra besides claiming Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation on account of mental agony, loss in professional business and Rs.33,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 5. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that there was no such problem of network coverage in that area and might be it was problem with the Complainant’s mobile handset due to which he was facing the problem of network and there were many other users of OPs in that area. Had there been any such problem occurred in that area, there would have been bundle of litigations before the Forum regarding this problem. It was pleaded that the only source to generate funds by OP is calls made by its subscribers and therefore in the present competition business scenario, no company would do an act, which is detrimental to its own interests. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service, a prayer was made by OPs for dismissal of the complaint. 6. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties as well as complainant have come up in their respective appeals. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments urged on behalf of Vodafone Essar South Ltd- Opposite party is that the District Fora under the Consumer Protection Act had no jurisdiction to try and decide the dispute between the telecom service provider and its subscriber as such matters against telecommunication services are not maintainable in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in General Manager,Telecome Vs M.Krishnan & another (Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 decided on 1.9.2009). Against this submission and observations made in the above stated ruling, complainant could not show any law . Thus, we have no option but to hold that the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 have no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon such disputes of telecommunication services as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in above said ruling that there is implied bar to invoke the provisions of Consumer Protection Act in view of Section-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 8. Therefore , in view of the law settled by the Apex court in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan & another(Supra), the appeal filed by OP is accepted and that of complainant is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.7.2009 passed by the District Forum is set aside and complaint is dismissed being not maintainable in the Fora. 9. Before parting with this order, it is observed that even Ms. Chetna Bhagat, Legal Executive of OP had stated before the District Forum that there was difficulty of network in one room of the complainant (as mentioned in the interim order dated 18.6.2009 passed by the District Forum) but as observed above, no relief can be granted to complainant under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. However, he would be at liberty to knock at the door of the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction over the matter, in accordance with law. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
