DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM-EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 225/2012
Date of Institution-29/03/2012
Date of Order-20/07/2016
In matter of
Mr. Anil Bareja, adult
D-246, Ground Floor, Gali No. 10,
Nr Laxmi Nagar Metro Station……………..………………………..…….Complainant
Vs
Reliance Communications,
2674, Kutcha Challan,
Daryaganj, Delhi- 110002…………………………………………………………Opponent
Complainant advocate- Rajesh Kumar Sharma – Advocate
Opponent advocate -Rohit Jain
Corum- Sh Sukhdev Singh- President
Dr. P N Tiwari - Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur -Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member :
The brief facts are as –
The complainant Mr Anil Bajera, had one mobile connection which he was using since long. He had opted an unlimited plan known as NJB13ZR2501 whose monthly plan was Rs 2501/per month.
Complainant got a message on 08/10/2011 from OP that his monthly plan will be changed as per TRAI plan. Complainant immediately reverted the message that he do not require any such plan, but OP informed that the plan will be changed from 17/10/2011.
Not reverting his plan despite of informing number of times to OP, complainant filed this complaint. Complainant asked for the TRAI plan which was not made available and new plan as COMBO Plan BBPP2501 was given for unlimited use for which he did not consented. He alleged that the conduct of the OP was illegal and unwarranted as without considering his request to revert the old plan, new plan was enforced. So he prayed for giving direction to opponent for issuing of TRAI plan and restoration of old plan with compensation of one lakh with litigation charges Rs 25000/-.
After perusal of complaint, notice was served. OP submitted their written statement. The OP relied upon the Apex court judgment in General Manager Telecom VS M Krishnan and others in civil appeal no. 768/2004 where it observed as –
“there is a special remedy provided in sec 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telegraph bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.”
The OP has also relied on various judgments as Prakash Verma vs Idea Cellular Ltd & others in 1703/2010, Usha Seth vs Reliance Infocom Ltd & others. He has also
taken ref. from various State Commission’s judgments where all citations says that alleged dispute were not maintainable in consumer Foras.
OP has also submitted that complainant has wrongly mentioned in the complaint which is against the Customer Application Form (CAF) clause 3(ii) which reads as under-
“In any event, the maximum overall liability of the company in contract, tort or otherwise shall be to refund the amount of security deposit, after adjusting the charges due from subscriber. Without prejudice, in no event shall the company, its officers, employees shall be liable for any damages costs, expenses or losses of whatsoever nature including but not limited to loss or profit or loss of business pertaining to the provision of services to the subscriber.”
OP has given relevant clauses and sub clauses of CAF which are binding to the complainant and this document is main evidence in establishing contract between the OP and complainant.
OP has also submitted the copy of TRAI regulations and evidences on affidavit which are on record. The complainant has filed his rejoinder with evidences on affidavit. OP has also filed their evidence by way of affidavit.
We have gone through all the documents submitted by the parties and annexures. By scrutinizing the TRAI regulations, it is clear that such disputes are not maintainable before Fora. But in the present complaint, complainant has prayed for the supply of copy of TRAI regulation and reverting his old plan.
As far as issuing of copy of TRAI regulation is concerned, it is evident from the written statement filed by the opponent earlier; hence complainant has a copy of TRAI regulation. As far as second point is concerned regarding restoration of old plan, this issue has been dealt by Honble Apex Court and others regarding the dispute in telecom matters, was not maintainable before the jurisdiction of this Fora.
Hence, there is no merit in the complaint and no deficiency has been established by the complainant and thus same deserves to be dismissed.
The complaint is dismissed without any cost and direction.
Let the copy of order be sent to the parties as per rule and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs. Harpreet Kaur - Member (Dr) P N Tiwari, Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
President
