Delhi

New Delhi

CC/485/2016

Vishal Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Communication Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2016

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./485/2016                         Dated:

In the matter of:

VISHAL YADAV

S/o Sh. S.K. Yadav,

R/o 317/11, Railway Flats,

Shakur Basti,

Delhi-110034

        ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1.     RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

        Through Manager/Manager(Customer Care),

        6^th Floor, Vijaya Building, Barakhamba Road,

        New Delhi-110001

       

2.     RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

        Through Manager/Manager(Customer Care),

        A Block, 2^nd Floor, DACK, Kopar Khairance,

        Navi Mumbai-400 710

 

3.     RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

        Registered Office,

        H Block, 1^st Floor, DACK,

        Navi Mumbai-400 710

 

 

 

               .... OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

 

ORDER

 

The grievance of the complainant, which led him to file the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in short, is that OP telecommunication service provider discontinued outgoing calls without assigning any reason and without any intimation to the complainant consumer, in respect of GSM postpaid mobile connection and GSM Mobile No. 8010382736. The very same day, complainant sent email to find out the reason of barred outgoing calls to the opposite party's customer care mail ID, and after a few hours, the complainant received a call from an executive of the OP, who stated that the outgoing calls were barred because an amount of Rs.1657.07/– is due on the complainant's GSM Mobile account. The complainant informed the lady executive that the last date to pay the same was 5/4/2016 otherwise the credit limit of the complainant is Rs. 3500/–. The complaint also received the reply of the email on this very same day i.e. 26/3/2016. From the side of  OP it was stated that the outgoing calls were barred because a bill of Rs. 1657.07/– is due on complainant's GSM Mobile account. On 7/4/2016 the complaint found the incoming facilities was stopped. The OP ignored the fact that in e-mail, dated 26/3/2016 the complainant wrote clearly that he doesn't want to continue with the OP and want to surrender his GSM mobile connection. Despite the fact that the due date of payment of bill was 5/4/2016, the outgoing facility was withdrawn from the mobile phone of the complainant on 26/3/2016, which is illegal. The complainant could not connect his client because of the illegal acts and negligence on the part of the OP. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service and malpractice adopted by the OP, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 7/5/2016 demanding Rs.150,000/– as financial/professional loss and mental agony caused by the OP together with up-to-date interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of actual realisation within seven days of receipt of the legal notice. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:

1. Pass an order directing the OP to release the claimed amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- as the loss suffered to the complainant alongwith the pendent elite and further interest @ 16% p.a. compounded at monthly rests plus penal interest @2% p.a. simple from the date of filing this complaint till the date of actual realization.
2. Pass an order directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for facing mental agony and Rs. 3,500/- for physical suffering, conveyance and telephone charges due of malpractice adopted by the OP.
3.     Pass an order directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as cost of litigation incurred by the complainant and other expenses.
4. Grant other and/or further relief(s) which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Complainant on the question of admission of complaint and have gone through the relevant provisions of law.

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 exclusiv 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 phone which comes within the definition of Telegraph stated before.

 

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 number 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 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. A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in)  The file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 20/09/2016.

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                     (H M VYAS)                                             (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                                         MEMBER                                                  MEMBER