Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/53/2016

Sanjeev Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Store - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Naveen Behl

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 53 of 2016

                                                     Date of institution : 23.05.2016                                

                                                  Date of decision    : 17.04.2018

Sanjeev Singla son of Sh. Parshotam Singla R/o H.No.2776/1, ward No.8, Part-1, Sirhind Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib-140406.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Store, Humayunpur, Sirhind Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Reliance Communications Ltd. Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, DLF Building, Tower-F, Near Kishangarh, Chandigarh-160101.

 

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.                

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                           

     Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh. Naveen Behl, Adv. for complainant.

                      Opposite party No.1 exparte

                      Sh. Anwar Hussain, Adv.Cl. for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President:

 

                      Complainant, Sanjeev Singla son of Sh. Parshotam Singla R/o H.No.2776/1, ward No.8, Part-1, Sirhind Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib-140406, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant was having a mobile connection No.93177-34100, which was using by the complainant for the last so many years. The complainant has never become defaulter of the OPs and paid all the bills regularly. The OPs provide both GSM and CDMA services to its consumers through different plans and also provide internet services. At the time of launching the CDMA services, the OPs assured to the customers that this is the best service and it was not informed to the complainant that the services will be de-activated at any time. In the month of April 2016, OP No.2 through its customer care service contacted the complainant to port the said mobile connection from CDMA to GSM by showing their intention to upgrade the present internet service into 4G services. The complainant refused to port his number and showed his intention to remain the customer of CDMA services. On 30.04.2016 the OPs informed the complainant through SMS regarding availability of CDMA services till 08.05.2016. The OPs have no right to say that the CDMA services are available till 08.05.2016, as the OPs have valid license to continue CDMA services till  27.04.2026.   The complainant is a practicing lawyer and his said mobile number is in the record of his colleagues and clients, but due to de-activation of services, the complainant suffered a lot of harassment.  The complainant could not be contacted by his clients, relatives and colleagues from the said mobile number. The complainant wants to continue his said connection being customer of CDMA services and does not want to avail the 4G services. The complainant has also purchased a CDMA handset worth Rs.15,000/- with intention to retain CDMA services. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to restore un-interrupted CDMA services by activating the mobile connection No.93177-34100 of complainant and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony.
3. Notices of the complaint were issued to OPs but OP No.1 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complaint is contested by OP No.2. In reply to the complaint, OP No.2 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum; the complainant does not fall under the definition of a consumer as he had been using the connection for professional purpose and this Forum does not have jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  As regards the facts of the complaint, OP No. 2  stated that in order to upgrade the services from the existing CDMA to LTE services, it had discontinued the existing CDMA services and liberalized its spectrum by taking prior approval of DOT. In this regard, all the existing subscribers of the company were duly intimated about the disconnection of the CDMA services and were further requested to get their connections MNP with the option of choosing the GSM network/services of the company. The said option was also given to the complainant, which has been duly admitted by him, but he has not chosen to accept the said option. The approval was given by the DOT and the same was also intimated to TRAI, vide letter dated 7^th April 2016 about the approval and vide subsequent letters, the disconnection of the CDMA services.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No. 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, literature Ex. C-2,  copy of message sent by OP No.2 to complainant Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No. 2 &3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Garry Rana Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence.
6. The ld. counsel for the OP No. 2 has at the very outset made a submission that his preliminary objection be decided before adjudicating the present complaint on merits. The ld. counsel stated that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held, in case General Manager Telecom Versus M. Krishana & Anr., that the Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to try and decide the dispute between telecom service provider and its subscribers in view of the well settled law of overriding effect of a Special Law over a general law. Provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, it being a Special Law dealing specifically in matters related to Telegraph Department, shall override the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, it being a General Law dealing in general consumer matters. The relevant abstracts of the judgment are reproduced herein below:-

" 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 Hon'ble National Commission has further held in 'Parkash Verma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr'. that the judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all the Subordinate Courts. There is no scope for interference while dismissing the Revision Petition. Further the Petitioner Parkash Verma preferred a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2010.

7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the case law relied upon by OP No.2 are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint. He stated that the present case deserves to be adjudicated upon on merits only.
8.  After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties, the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the plea of the ld. counsel for OP No. 2. In the light of the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the OPs and the case law relied upon by him, the dispute relates to the Telecom Service Provider  and in view of the Judgment in case "General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishanan & Another"(Supra) it cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Fora. In this respect, also the Revision Petition First Appeal No. 1269 of 2012 and No.1703 of 2010 titled as "Prakash Verma Versus Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr." decided on 21.05.2010 by the Hon'ble National Commission and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 01.10.2010 by holding that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.
9.   Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid case law relied upon by the OPs, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable, as this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to approach the appropriate court of law/appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances against the OPs. All the original and requisite documents placed on record be returned to the complainant. A copy of the said documents be retained in record.
10. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 04.04.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 17.04.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)                President

 

(Inder Jit)             Member