DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/333/2016
No. DF/ Central/
Shri Ashutosh Bansal
S/o Shri H S Bansal
R/o 2362, Hudson Line, Delhi – 110009
…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Reliance Communications Ltd.,
Reliance Center, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg,
New Delhi - 110002
…..OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
- Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging therein that Complainant used to recharge his phone of Rs. 33/34 to make local calls at the rate of Rs. 30 Paisa for 21/28 days. On 4th September, 2016 when complainant made calls it was charging Rs. 1 per minute for local call. Complainant came to know that after making these calls he was charged higher rate and that it was duty of service provider to inform the customer about any value added
-
OP never complied with TRAI guidelines and has cheated the complainant.Hence, the complaint seeking direction to OP to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses for deficiency in service and physical harassment.
- On receipt of notice OP appeared and filed the reply wherein they have taken an objection that complaint is not maintainable before Consumer Forum.
- In General Manager, Telecom vs M. Krishnan & Anr Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 decided on 1st September, 2009 by the Apex Court [(2009) CPJ 1062] wherein the facts of the case were regarding non-payment of telephone bill of the telephone connection on account of which telephone connection was disconnected. Complaint was filed before the District Forum which was allowed and appellant was directed to reconnect the telephone connection and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. Appellant filed writ petition before High Court challenging jurisdiction of consumer forum. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. In SLP Hon’ble Apex Court observed :
‘‘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-s. (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.
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.’’
4. In Lokesh Prashar vs. M/s. Idea Celluar Ltd. and another in Revision Petition No. 3780 of 2011 complainant obtained a mobile connection of M/s. Idea Celluar Ltd.,. (in short OP). OP did not provide cellular phone services to him. Hence he filed
a complaint before the District Forum, Faridabad alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Referring to the judgement of the Apex Court in the M. Krishnan (supra) and another judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Verma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.24577 of 2010) the District Forum held that it did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint in question and hence dismissed the same as not maintainable vide its order dated 24.5.2011. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, Faridabad, complainant challenged the same before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (Panchkula). The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal which was challenged through the revision petition No. 3780 of 2011. National Commission vide its order dated 20th April 2012 agreed with the District Forum and the State Commission to the effect that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. It was observed that
‘‘5. In line with the judgment in the case of M. Krishnan (Supra), this commission vide its order dated 21.05.2010 (Revision Petition No. 1703 of 2010) in the case of Prakash Verma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. and Anr., dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner holding that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration
proceedings only. The special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 01.10.2010.’’
X X X
‘’the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in respect of the dispute under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, as is the case with the present dispute as well, has to be followed and there should not be any doubt about it. The revision petition devoid of any merit, therefore, is liable for dismissal and the same is accordingly dismissed but with no orders as to costs.’’
5. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in M. Krishnan (supra) the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this 10th day of Sept. 2018.
