KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO: 690/2010

 JUDGMENT DATED:22-01-2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                  : MEMBER

M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.,

Mercy Estate, II Floor,                                        : APPELLANT

Ravipuram, M.G.Road,

Kochi-15.

(By Adv.M/s Dandapani Associates)

          Vs.

Mr. P.Paulose,

S/o late Pathrose,

R/at Puthenpurackal House,                              : RESPONDENT

Kizhmadu, Erumathala.P.O,

Aluva, Pin-683 112.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.503/2008 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.

2.      The matter is with respect to the alleged disconnection of the mobile connection of the complainant during the period from 2/12/2008 to 10/12/2008.  It is only after lodging a complaint before the police, the connection was reconnected.  According to the complainant he had suffered personal losses on account of the disconnection.  He had claimed a sum of Rs.1.lakh as compensation.

3.      Although the opposite parties had filed version disputing the case that the complainant had informed the case of disconnection to the opposite parties no evidence was adduced.

4.      The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3.

5.      The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Another (Civil Appeal No.7687/2004) Supreme Court had held that in view of Sec.7-B of Telegraph Act wherein arbitration have been provided, the parties are bound to resort to the above remedy and that the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction.  We find that the provision is with respect to the disputes between the telegraph authority and the individual concerned and where the particular authority had the schemes of arbitration.  There is nothing in the above order to the effect that it applies to the private service providers as well.  In the circumstances we find that there is no merit in the contention of the appellant.  There is no scope for admitting the appeal.  Hence the appeal is dismissed in-limine.

Office will forward copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

VL.