16th day of May 2012
CC.906/08 filed on 5/12/08
Complainant : T.P.Davis, Thattil Cheenickal House, Nedupuzha.P.O.,
Thrissur.
(By Adv.K.K.Rajeevan, Thrissur)
Respondents : 1. Reliance Webworld Express, Kuriachira, Thrissur.
2. Reliance Infocom Ltd., Thane Belapur Road
Koperkhairane, Navimumbai, rep. by Managing
Director, Anil Ambani.
(By Adv.K.S.Ravisankan, Thrissur for R2)
ORDER
By Smt.Rajani.P.S., Member
The complainant’s case is that the complainant availed two land line telephones of the 2nd respondent company through the 1st respondent. The said telephone numbers are 0487-3257431 and 0487-3257419. He terminated the above said connections on 1/2/2008 due to the inferior quality of service by the respondents and the instruments were handed over to the 1st respondent very same day and cleared the entire dues on the very same day. But in the first week of March 2008 the complainant received a letter from the 2nd respondent stating a sum of Rs.427/- is due towards the telephone No.3257431 and the same was paid by the complainant on 18/3/08. Later again received a bill dated 5/6/05 for Rs.1,774/- from the 1st respondent towards the same telephone number. Even after surrendering the telephone on 1/2/08 he received the above said bills for the surrendered phone. When he contacted the 2nd respondent it was replied that it may be by mistake and no amount is due from the complainant. There after he received a lawyer notice dated 5/8/08 from 1st respondent demanding to pay a sum of Rs.1,773/- But when he contacted the 2nd respondent at Ernakulam office they replied that there is no due and he surrendered the instrument and connection on 1/2/08. But again he received a lawyer notice dated 5/8/08 alleging that complainant has not surrendered the phone, paid the monthly bills and there is due of Rs.1,773/-. Again on 19/11/08 he received another lawyer notice dated 1/11/08 stating the same matter in earlier notices and also demanding to attend the adalath conducted by the 1st respondent. He contacted the lawyer and 2nd respondent and explained the matter. But they were not ready to clear the mistakes on their part. He is a business man with busy schedules. So due to the above said acts of the respondents caused disturbances and mental agony to the complainant. The acts of the respondents amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. Counter filed by the respondents : The complaint is not maintainable. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan and another dated 1/9/09 this consumer complaint is not maintainable and the maintainability of the complaint may be heard as a preliminary issue. The 1st respondent is not the authorized service agent of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is not a private limited company. It is admitted that the said connections were issued by 1st respondent and service to the connections were provided by the 2nd respondent. The termination of the service and connection on 1st February 2009 is not correct. The complainant intentionally hided the fact of receipt of bills dated 5th April for Rs.962.31/- and bill dated 5th May 2008 for Rs.780.34/-. This was done with intention of hiding his default and to mislead the Hon’ble Forum as the bill dated 5th June 2008 is only showing accumulated outstanding dues along with a small demand for a short period from 5th May 2008 which is amounting to Rs.30.07/-. The complainant never met the 2nd respondent at any time. The lawyer notices and notice for attending adalath etc. was issued only because of non-remittance of the outstanding dues. The complainant never contacted the 2nd respondent Managing Director at Ernakulam Office and the complaint is filed on an experimental basis. Further he hided the non-clearance of the outstanding due amount in the other telephone number for Rs.302.96. There was no unfair trade practice from the side of the respondents at any time. The complaint is filed with a motive to escape from his liability of making the payment to make money by dragging this respondents for an unwanted litigation. The complainant is not eligible for compensation amount claimed. Hence dismiss with costs.
3. Points for consideration :
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum ?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P9 and the oral testimony of PW1.
5. It is the case of complainant that he is a consumer of the reliance communications vide two telephone connections numbered 0487-3257431 and 0487-3257419. He terminated the said connections on 1/2/08 due to inferior quality of service and the instruments were handed over to the 1st respondent and paid the entire dues. But he received bills towards the surrendered and disconnected telephone number 3257431. The respondents also demanded the bill amounts through lawyer notices also. But when he contacted the 2nd respondent office at Ernakulam they replied that there is no due and he surrendered the connection on 1/2/08. Hence the demand for arrear amount is unfair and shows deficiency in service.
6. The respondents in their counter challenged the maintainability of the complaint as it is not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004. They also contented that they issued bills for the non-remittance of the outstanding dues.
7. So the issue of maintainability is to be considered first. In Civil Appeal No7687 of 2004 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when there is a special remedy provided in regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills etc. the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Rule 413 of the Telegraph rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. So this is applicable to private agencies also So the dictum laid down in Civil Appeal No7687/2004 will be applicable in this case and the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The complainant can approach the arbitrator.
8. In the result the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable with a direction to approach the arbitrator within two months. Meanwhile the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the complainant.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 16th day of May 2012.
Sd/- Rajani.P.S., Member
Sd/- Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/- M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 Phone bill
Ext. P2 Lawyer notice dt. 7/7/08
Ext. P3 Lawyer notice dt.5/8/08
Ext. P4 Lawyer notice dt. 1/11/08
Ext. P5 Copy of lr. dt. 5/3/08
Ext. P6 Copy of receipt for Rs.427/-
Ext. P7 Copy of receipt dt.1/2/08
Ext. P8 Copy of receipts dt. 1/2/08 4 Nos.
Ext. P9 Copy of lr. dt.17/3/08
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – Davis.T.P.
Id/- Member
