Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/81/2013

M.Selvaraju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Communications Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

N.Maheshwaraih

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 12.03.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 22.01.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B., PGDCLP.               : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.81/2013

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019

                                 

Mr. M. Selvaraju,

S/o. Mr. D. Manickam,

Flat No.1A, 1^st Floor,

Akshaya Enclave,

No.38/41, Gill Nagar, 2^nd Street,

Choolaimedu,

Chennai – 600 094.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                    

 

                                                                                     ..Versus..

1. The Area Manager,

Reliance Communications Ltd.,

Haddows Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 006.

 

2. The Managing Director,

Reliance Communications Ltd.,

Dhirubai Ambani Knowledge City,

Navi Mumbai – 400 710.                                        ..  Opposite parties.

          

 

Counsel for complainant            :  M/s. N. Maheswariah

Counsel for the opposite party  :  M/s. Shivakumar & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to disconnect all the mobile service No.8144266677, 8144766677 & 8695034455 and Data card and refund all charges so far paid by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he availed post paid mobile connection Nos.8144266677, 8144766677 & 8695034455 and Data card service of the opposite party.  The complainant submits that after availing the connection of the opposite parties, there was no signals available in the area of Gill Nagar, Choolaimedu, Arumbakkam.  The complainant is a practicing Advocate of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.   Due to the non-availability of signals, the complainant suffered a lot.  The complainant states that  he lodged complaints through the retail outlet of the opposite parties at Kodambakkam, Chennai where the complainant got service connections.  But the opposite party has not bothered to rectify the tower problem where the customers were faced in the aforesaid localities.  The complainant states that the service of the opposite parties are very poor, even after the complaint by the complainant.  No one from the opposite parties are attended the signal problems nor enquired about the problem.  The complainant submits that due to the non-response from the opposite parties, the complainant was constrained to stop the usage of the aforesaid connections from 15^th September 2012.  The complainant states that he issued a demand notice to the opposite parties on 26.10.2012 calling upon them to disconnect all the above referred services.   The complainant states that after receipt of the said demand notice dated:26.10.2012, the 1^st opposite party sent a notice through the Manager, Collection & Retention, demanding the outstanding bill for a sum of Rs.6,672/- and threatened the complainant by saying that action to be taken under the Indian Penal Code.  The complainant states that he received a reply letter dated:26.12.2012 from the 2^nd opposite party saying sincere apologize for the inconvenience if any caused and also demand for payment of the said outstanding amount of Rs.6,671/-.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence, this complaint is filed.  

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as per the agreement entered between the complainant and the opposite parties.  The jurisdiction is only on Mumbai.   The opposite parties state that as per the Telegraph Act Section 7-B that “it is well settled that the special law over rides the general law” and hence, ousted the jurisdiction of Consumer Courts in disputes relating to telecommunication service provider and the customer.   The opposite parties state that the complainant has availed 3 mobile phone connections, USB modem data card etc.  The opposite parties state that till the end of October 2012, the complainant availed the service and used the mobile connection and data card to the tune of Rs.6,672/-.   Without paying the said amount, the complainant has filed this case before this Forum.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief of disconneciton of the mobile service Nos.8144266677, 8144766677 & 8695034455 and Data card and refund all charges paid as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties field their respective written arguments. Heard the opposite parties’ Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  Admittedly, the complainant availed post paid mobile connection Nos.8144266677, 8144766677 & 8695034455 and Data card service of the opposite party.  The complainant pleaded and contended that after availing the connection of the opposite parties, there was no signals available in the area of Gill Nagar, Choolaimedu, Arumbakkam.   The complainant  is a practicing Advocate of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.   Due to the non-availability of signals, the complainant suffered a lot.  The complainant informed the fact to the opposite parties’ office and requested to rectify the tower problem.  But the opposite parties turned deaf ears.  Evenafter repeated requests and complaints, the signal problems not rectified.  Hence, the complainant stopped the usage of the mobile phone connection and Data card from 15.09.2012.  But the complainant has not produced any record to prove the same.  On the other hand, it is seen that on 26.10.2012, the complainant issued notice to the opposite party as per Ex.A1 to disconnect all the services.  But the opposite party without disconnecting the mobile phone and data card service, claimed a sum of Rs.6,672/- and issued a demand notice as per Ex.A3 for which, the opposite parties replied as per Ex.A4 dated:26.12.2012.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case for claiming compensation and disconnection of the mobile phone and Data card service etc.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.B2 & Ex.B3, it is very clear that till the end of October, the complainant has used the mobile phone connections and Data card.  There is no record to prove that the complainant has requested the opposite parties to disconnect the mobile phone connections and the Data card connection from 15^th September 2012.  It is also seen that till the end of October 2012, there is a balance of Rs.6,256/- as per Ex.B2. 

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as per the agreement entered between the complainant and the opposite parties.  The jurisdiction is only on Mumbai.  But it is very clear that all the transactions has happened within this jurisdiction.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that as per the Telegraph Act Section 7-B that “it is well settled that the special law over rides the general law” and hence, such cases cannot not be filed before this Consumer Forum on the ground of deficiency in service.  But the opposite parties has not produced any authority to prove such contention.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has availed 3 mobile phone connections, USB modem data card etc.  The allegation that there was no signal and tower problem; is not acceptable because the complainant availed the service of the opposite parties by using the mobile phone and Data card by USB modem etc.   As per Ex.B5, there was a clear coverage of signal in the Choolaimedu area is not disputed by the complainant.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that till the end of October 2012, the complainant availed the service and used the mobile connection and data card to the tune of Rs.6,256/-.  The notice was issued by the complainant only on 26.10.2012.  Hence, the complainant shall pay the said amount due as on 13.10.2012.   Without paying the said amount, the complainant is filing this case on the ground of deficiency in service is unsustainable.   The law is well settled that the defaulter cannot claim any right under the act.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no bill generated after Ex.B3.   But as per Ex.A1, the complainant requested for disconnection of the services.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	26.10.2012	Copy of letter by the complainant
Ex.A2	30.10.2012	Copy of acknowledgment card
Ex.A3	22.12.2012	Copy of demand notice issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A4	26.12.2012	Copy of reply by the 2nd opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:- 

Ex.B1	August, 2012	Copy of bills for the period from 14.08.2012 to 13.09.2012
Ex.B2	September 2012	Copy of bills for the period from 14.09.2012 to 13.10.2012
Ex.B3		Copy of statement of accounts of the complainant
Ex.B4		Copy of mail communications of the opposite parties
Ex.B5		Copy of coverage plot of Choolaimedu area

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT