DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 03 of 03-01-2011

Decided on : 29-03-2011

Mahesh Bansal S/o Sh. Lachman Das Bansal aged about 65 years R/o H. No. 677, Deep Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda.

....Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Communication Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, H Block, 1^st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 710.

2. Office Incharge, Reliance Web-world Reliance Communication Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda. 151 001.

.... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Navneet Garg, counsel for the complainant.

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rajan Garg, counsel for the opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant is having a telephone connection vide number 1643201143. The said connection was a post paid connection with a monthly rental of Rs. 199/-. The complainant has paid all the bills regularly except the bills issued on 18-10-2010, 18-11-2010 and 18-12-2010. The real name of the complainant is Mahesh Kumar Bansal but due to typographical mistake of the opposite parties they have been issuing the bills under the name 'Mukesh Bansal'. The complainant requested the opposite parties many times to change his name in their record but they kept on sending bills to the complainant in the name of Mukesh Bansal and he accordingly has been depositing the bills in the said name. The phone of the complainant was giving trouble and was not working, but the opposite parties have been sending the bills and the complainant was compelled to pay the bills even after non-using of the said connection. Under these circumstances, the complainant was compelled to get his connection disconnected. He met the opposite party No. 2 and a offer of waiver of 200/- was given to him, but the complainant was not ready to continue this phone and to pay the bills as he has not used the said connection for that period. On 15-10-2010, one executive of the opposite parties namely Mr. Sandip came to the house of complainant and after long discussion, the complainant paid Rs. 490/- as the final amount for the clearance of all the outstanding against the complainant and he assured the complainant that from 18-10-2010 onwards the post paid connection of the complainant would be converted into pre-paid connection but his post paid connection was not converted into pre-paid connection till date. The complainant alleged that he made repeated requests to the opposite parties personally as well as through E-mail but nothing has been done. The outgoing facility of the phone of the complainant has been disconnected and the phone was not being used by him. The opposite parties have issued bills dated 18-10-2010, 18-11-2010 and 18-12-2010 to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he was not liable to pay these bills as his post paid connection has already been permanently disconnected. The son of the complainant paid Rs. 150/- each to opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 being the recharge of pre-paid connection. The post paid connection of the complainant has not been converted into pre-paid connection despite repeated requests and the opposite parties have issued bills for the period when the phone was not being used by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2. Instead of filing the reply of complaint, the opposite parties filed application for dismissal of the complainant on the ground that it is not maintainable. For this he has taken support of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr 2009(III) CPJ 71 (SC).

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length and have gone through record.

4. The dispute in this case was regarding non-conversion of the telephone of the complainant from post paid connection to prepaid connection and regarding non-payment of bills.

5. Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads as under :-

“Section 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.”

6. This Forum is of the view that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled General Manger, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. (Supra) wherein it has been held that :-

   “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.”

   “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.”

   The same findings are again confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Parkash Verma Vs. IDEA Cellular Ltd. & Anr., in Special Leave Petition No. 24577/2010 decided on 01-10-2010.

7. As discussed above, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned authorities . Hence, this complaint is hereby dismissed in limine.

   A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned.

Pronounced

29-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul) Member