In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 45 / 2007 1) Anima Manna Bera, 11C, Arpuli Lane, Kolkata-12. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) Reliance India Mobile. 2) Commercial Manager, Reliance Infocom, Both are 34, Chowringee Road, Kolkata-700071. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member Order No. 1 9 Dated 2 7 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 . Ms. Anima Manna Bera, Complainant of the case, by filing a Petition of Complaint on 14.02.2007 has prayed for issuing direction upon the O.Ps, Reliance Mobile not to realize the excessive, inflated bills from the Complainant and Compensation of Rs. 15,000.00 and Litigation Cost. The Complainant on the basis of an offer, viz., “Pioneer Scheme” became a member on and from 22.02.2003 and obtained the mobile set bearing No. 31001972 on issuance of 13 post-dated cheques drawn on State Bank of India, Surya Sen Street, and accordingly, the connection was given on payment of total amount of Rs. 24,600.00 payable in 12 quarterly post-dated cheques of Rs. 1,800.00 each and one cheque for Rs. 3,000.00 for mobile set scheme of the O.P. 7 cheques have already been encashed by the O.P. No. 2 and the balance cheques are lying with the O.Ps and it is also contained in the agreement that inaugural pioneer customers would get 40% discount on STD calls made to non-Reliance members upto 30.04.2003 and would get facilities for making 400 minutes free call per month and that upto 400 minutes’ calls no charge would be levied. But from the beginning the mobile set was found defective & unsatisfactory and sometimes found disruption of service and against it the Complainant made a fax on 08.01.2004 to the O.P. No. 1 for not getting clear signal. But despite the assurance given by the O.Ps they raised bill for the sum of Rs. 179.37P dated 01.06.2003 without furnishing details of the calls of 400 minutes free calls and the O.Ps on different bills on different dates raised excessive and exorbitant bills for every month from 01.06.2003 to 01.04.2006 demanding payment of bills which are not only inflated but capricious, and finding no other alternative the Complainant sent Lawyer’s notice on 06.02.2004, but ignoring the Lawyer’s notice they have not complied with the assurance they have given to the Complainant earlier. And the Complainant has been compelled to file this case against the O.P. The O.Ps have filed their W.V. on 03.07.2007 contending, inter-alia, that the case is bad for misjoinder of parties as there is no Body Corporate known as Reliance India Mobile. This is the registered brand name of the Company’s product and is not a juristic person and so he cannot be sued. And there is no such post as Commercial Manger, Reliance Infocom. The Application is barred by resjudicata because the case was dismissed being CDF Case No. 358 of 2004 on 17.02.2005 vide Annexure-A. They have denied all the allegations regarding charging of amount of bills alleging to be excessive by the Complainant. It is their specific case that the Complainant has used the phone connection and has accrued an unpaid due of Rs. 4,778.00 till the last bill dated 01.07.2006 and the bills from June, 2005 to December, 2005 are available in the system. The Complainant is aware upto the last bills raised by R.C.O.M. and received by her bill from 01.06.05 to 01.12.05 are annexed hereto collectively marked Annexure-C. There is no deficiency of service on their part, and accordingly, they have prayed for dismissal of the case. DECISION WITH REASONS :- We have perused the documents, viz., the Loan Agreement alongwith the Application Form. We have also perused the fax message dated 18.01.2004 wherein she has complained that she has already paid 3 cheques of Rs. 1,800.00 but she did not get any signal clear in her house or office. And accordingly she wanted to stop her network from the day and not to deposit any advance cheque due on 10.01.2004 in favour of the O.Ps and she has requested them for verification of clear signal. The present case involves the question of dispute regarding payment of mobile phone bill. Under the provisions of Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act the matter regarding dispute of telephone bill is to be disposed of by arbitration and Hon’ble State Commission in several judgements has opined that with regard to dispute of telephone bill the dispute is to be resolved by way of arbitration under Section 7(B). The provisions of Section 7(B) is as follows : “Section 7(B) Arbitration of Disputes : - (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telephone line, appliance or apparatus arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for 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 especially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of the disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the Arbitrator appointed under such Sub-Section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the disputes and shall not be questioned in any Court”. With regard to this provision the decisions reported in AIR1996SC-2476 & AIR1997SC-2653 are worth mentioning. In view of this position the Petition of Complaint is dismissed. No Order is passed as to cost. However, for ends of justice the Complainant is given the opportunity to refer his dispute under Section 7(B) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rules thereunder for arbitration by the Competent Authority. The case is disposed of from this Forum accordingly. ____Sd-_____ ______Sd-______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
