COMPLAINT FILED: 30-07-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 06-01-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 6TH JANUARY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1807/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> T.Raamaanjinappa<br /> S/o.Late Sri.Thadappa,<br /> Aged about 66 Years,<br /> #298, 17th Cross, 2nd Block, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore – 32.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.I.Ishwara Bhat<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1.Reliamce Information Ltd.,<br /> Registered Office:<br /> Reliance House, <br /> Near Mardia Plaza,<br /> Office,C.G.Road,<br /> AHEMDABAD – 380 006<br /> Represented by its <br /> Managing Director<br /> <br /> 2.Reliance Information Communication Ltd.,<br /> 8th Mile, Tumkur Road,<br /> Hesaraghatta Cross,<br /> Dasarahalli, Bangalore – 57.<br /> Represented by its Manager<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.K.Ravindra<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction to Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to compensate the complainant for not providing the telephone facility in a sum of Rs.2,125/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- as damages due to harassment, inconveniences, frustration and mental agony suffered on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-<br /> <br /> 2. On 14-04-2007 the representatives of the OP 1 & 2 approached the complainant and insisted to avail Reliance Hello Fixed Landline Connection. The complainant was in need of the same to his farm house at Bankenahalli Sasalu Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and he paid sum of Rs.1,700/- for landline connection. The representatives of OP informed the complainant that they have activated the facility but the phone was not working. The complainant could not utilize the phone facility for a single day. Unfortunately he received bill for Rs.232/-. In this regard the complainant requested to waive the bill amount and to provide mobile connection within the range of Rs.1,700/- already paid. The representatives of the OP never bothered either to provide the facility or any other alternative phone. The complainant visited the office of the OP at R.T.Nagar to surrender the phone for which he was informed to use the changed code. Once again the complainant tried to utilize the phone but the same was not working. He again approached office at R.T.Nagar to surrender the instrument, at that time he was informed to pay Rs.425/- otherwise termination will not be accepted. The complainant paid that amount on 26-06-2007. The complainant could not use the facility for a single day but he used to receive the bill. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 26-02-2008 calling upon the OP to refund amount of Rs.1,700/-. OP inspite of service of notice never bothered to provide the service and nor refunded the amount. Thus OP has failed to provide the service as such the same amounts to deficiency in service. Thus the complainant claimed relief as stated above. <br /> <br /> 3. OPs on appearance filed IA to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable in view of judgement of the Supreme court in 2009 AIR SCW 5631 contending that the OP is a licensed service provider to general public. The company has obtained license by Government of India, the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 has ruled that the consumer of telegraph service can get his grievance redressed under Sec.7-B of Telegraph Act Hence the complaint is not maintainable, as this Forum has no jurisdiction, the same is to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed objections to the IA contending that there is no ouster of jurisdiction. Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act makes it clear that it is an addition not an ouster. The facts decided in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case. Reliance was placed on the principles laid down in AIR Kerala 110 in support of the contention that complaint is maintainable before this Forum and to dismiss the IA.<br /> 5. Arguments heard on both the sides. Point that arise for our consideration is :-<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether this Forum has no jurisdiction<br /> to decide the dispute arisen in the <br /> complaint?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We record our findings on the above point:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. From the complaint allegations, it is clear that the main grievance of the complainant is that he has deposited an amount of Rs.1,700/- for getting telephone connection from the OP company but the service was not provided. Thus the complainant claims refund of that amount of Rs.1,700/- with compensation on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In 2009 AIR SCW 5631 General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & others the Apex court held that dispute about Telephone bills are beyond jurisdiction of Consumer For a, Telegraph Act Sec.7-B provides the dispute to be resolved in respect of telephone bills, the remedy in Consumer Act is by implication barred. From the principles laid down in this ruling it becomes clear that when there is special remedy provided under Sec.7-B of Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute relating to telephone 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. The telegraph Act being special Act over ride the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 as held in this ruling. The dispute in this case is that inspite of depositing the amount of Rs.1,700/- the OP Company has not provided the service of telephone line to the complainant. Therefore the dispute squarely falls within meaning of dispute concerning telephone line. Under these circumstances the dispute arisen in between the parties cannot be decided by this Forum in view of the principles laid down in the above Ruling. <br /> <br /> 8. The Learned Counsel for the complainant relied on AIR 1998 Kerala 110 General Manager Telecom District, Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and another, wherein it was held that the dispute regarding the facility and services rendered by telephone department, jurisdiction of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, not ousted, as remedy provided under Consumer Protection Act is in addition to those available under the other statute or under general provision of law. <br /> <br /> 9. In our view in view of the principle laid down by Apex court in 2009 AIR SCW page 5631 the principle laid down in the above ruling cannot be made applicable. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed holding that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute arise in between the parties. <br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 6th day of January 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> NRS<br />