STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (IN APPEAL NO.409 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 08.11.2010 Date of Decision: 14.03.2011 1. Reliance Communication Ltd., SCO No.135-136, sector 9-C, Chandigarh and having its circle office at Tower-F, Ground Floor, DLF Building, Plot No.2, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh through its authorized representative Mr. Garry Rana. 2. Sh. Amitesh Makhan, Cluster Head, C/o Reliance Communication Ltd., SCO No.135-136, sector 9-C, Chandigarh and having its circle office at Tower-F, Ground Floor, DLF Building, Plot No.2, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh. ……Appellants. Versus1. Sh. Subhash Chander, Prop. M/s Santokh Diagnostic Laboratory, #846, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh. 2. Sh. Varinder Gupta, Franchise Owner C/o Reliance Web World Express, SCO No.2431, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. ....Respondents. BEFORE: MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. D. K. Singal, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.2. (APPEAL NO.414 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 12.11.2010 Date of Decision: 14.03.2011Sh. Varinder Gupta, Franchise Owner C/o Reliance Web World Express, SCO No.2431, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. ……Appellant. Versus1. Sh. Subhash Chander, Prop. M/s Santokh diagnostic Laboratory, #846, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh. 2. Reliance Communication Ltd., SCO No.135-136, sector 9-C, Chandigarh and having its circle office at Tower-F, Ground Floor, DLF Building, Plot No.2, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh through its authorized representative Mr. Garry Rana. 3. Sh. Amitesh Makhan, Cluster Head, C/o Reliance Communication Ltd., SCO No.135-136, sector 9-C, Chandigarh and having its circle office at Tower-F, Ground Floor, DLF Building, Plot No.2, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh. ....Respondents. Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Sh. D. K. Singal, Advocate for respondent No.2. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. This order will dispose of two appeals under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) one bearing F.A. No.409 of 2010 filed by the OPs No.1 and 2 – Reliance Communication and Sh. Amitesh Makhan (Cluster Head of OP No.1) and F.A. No.414 of 2010 filed by OP No.3 Sh. Varinder Gupta (Franchise Owner, Reliance Web World Express) for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the OPs were directed to restore the add on connection No.781423331 in favour of the complainant within seven days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Besides this direction, OPs were also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment besides Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which OPs were made liable to pay a further amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation in addition to the amounts already awarded. 2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that in the month of March, 2010, he took a mobile connection bearing No. 781423331 from OP No.3 and the said number was in regular use since March 2011. It was averred that the complainant had paid the entire outstanding bills to the OP No.3 vide bills (Annexures C-1 and C-2). The said mobile connection was disconnected by the OPs without any prior intimation to the complainant on 18.5.2010. As per the complainant, due to this act on the part of OPs in disconnecting his mobile connection, complainant suffered irreparable and substantial losses as he had offered a special offer of Health Package on 17.5.2010 vide which medical test was to be done on reasonable rates. It was averred that the complainant had mentioned the said mobile number in the offer, which was valid from 18.5.2010 to 31.5.2010. As per the complainant, more than 10,000 number of pamphlets were distributed by hand and also through the Hawkers, that the complainant was expecting approximately 500 bookings and each booking fetches Rs.550/-. As his mobile was disconnected by the OPs, only 10 bookings were actually received by him and consequently, he suffered a substantial loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant also, it was averred, requested the OPs to restore his mobile connection but to no avail. He also served a legal notice dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure C-6) upon the OPs but nothing was heard from the side of OPs. The complainant thereafter sent another legal notice in terms of his reminder dated 29.5.2010 (Annexure C-9) but to no avail. Finally, the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not restoring his mobile connection, filed the present complaint. 3. OPs No.1 and 2 refused to accept service of notices and thus, they were proceeded against exparte by the learned District Forum. 4. OP No.3, in its reply, admitting the giving of add on connection to the complainant on 16.4.2010, pleaded that the said connection was disconnected on 18.5.2010 due to non submission of the requisite documents by the complainant relating to his proof of address. Any loss consequent to the disconnection of the mobile connection to the complainant had been specifically denied by OP No.3. Pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 5. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions. 6. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to restore the connection within seven days, pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation besides Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation mentioned in the opening para of this order. OPs have challenged the impugned order through two separate appeals as mentioned above. 7. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Appellants/OPs and have perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant in both the appeals although Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate had appeared for the complainant before the learned District Forum. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants/OPs No.1 and 2 took an objection as regards the maintainability of the complaint qua OP No.1 and 2 in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC), wherein the dispute was regarding non payment of telephone bill due to which the telephone was disconnected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that remedy under the Act for telecom services in view of Section 7 B of Telegraph Act, 1885 is barred. He has also placed reliance on recent appeal bearing FA No.602 of 2009 titled Vikrant Saini Vs. Reliance Anil Dhiru Bhai Ambani Group decided on 1.3.2011 by this Commission, which was allowed and the order of the learned District Forum dated 14.9.2009 allowing the complaint was set aside. The case of Vikrant Saini (supra) was also decided in the light of the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom (supra). 9. At this stage, it will not be out of place to mention here that the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Prakash Verma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd & Another, Revision Petition No.1703 decided on 21.5.2010, while placing reliance on the General Manager, Telecom (supra) dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant holding that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain disputes in view of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP bearing No.24577 of 2010 on 1.10.2010 filed by the complainant against the orders of Hon’ble National Commission. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of General Manager, Telecom (Supra) and Prakash Verma (supra), the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters and as such, the learned District Forum has erred in allowing the complaint qua OPs No.1 and 2 while passing the impugned order. Thus, in our opinion, the complaint qua these OPs should have been dismissed by the learned District Forum. 10. Now coming to the appeal filed by the appellant/OP No.3, it is argued by learned counsel for OP No.3 that there is no deficiency on their part as the connection was disconnected by OPs No.1 and 2 only due to non submission of requisite documents by the complainant in respect of proof of his address. We do not find any merit in this contention. In order to appreciate the contention of OP No.3, we may go through the reply filed by him before the learned District Forum. It was admitted by this OP that the Telephone Regulatory Authority of India (hereinafter to be referred as TRAI) has issued guidelines for grant of telephone connection, in view of which, the applicant is to fill up a Customer Application Form (hereinafter to be referred as CAF), furnish one photograph along with proof of residence and proof of identity. In Para No.2 of the reply, this OP has mentioned as to which documents can be considered as proof of identity and which document can be considered as proof of address. The OP No.3/appellant admitted in Para No.3 of the reply that the complainant had filled up the CAF and submitted one photograph along with copy of PAN Card as proof of identity. However, he was not having proof of address as prescribed but supplied the copy of the bill of mobile phone on which he was getting add on connection. There is no dispute about it that copy of the bill of the mobile phone could not be taken as proof of address. According to this OP No.3/appellant (Para No.4 of the reply), in order to help him out, the appellant contacted the concerned official of the company for necessary action who verbally granted approval subject to the condition that the complainant supplies/furnishes the address proof of his present residence like Voter Card or Ration Card. The learned counsel referred to the Email (Annexure OP-3/4), which the OP No.3/appellant claims to have written to OPs No.1 and 2. It may be mentioned that this Email was written subsequently on 21.4.2010 though the connection had already been granted to the complainant on 16.4.2010 as admitted in Para No.5 of the reply. There is, therefore, no evidence to suggest if the OP No.3 had obtained any approval from OPs No.1 and 2 to release the connection without proof of residence. The contention of OP No.3/appellant in Para No.4 is, therefore, a wrong assertion. He did not produce the affidavit of Amit Sethi, the concerned official of OPs No.1 and 2 who was alleged to have granted the approval. Otherwise also, since the TRAI has fixed the requirement for granting telephone connection, Amit Sethi was not competent to override those instructions and allow OP No.3 to grant the connection in contravention thereof. OP No.3/appellant, therefore, has made out a false ground in this respect and actually, the connection was granted by OP No.3/appellant on the basis of the copy of the bill of mobile phone, which could not be taken as proof of residence. This was precisely the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3. 11. The OP No.3/appellant sent Email (Annexure OP-3/5) on 19.5.2010 in which it was admitted that they had give connection to Sh. Subhash Chander on 16.4.2010, that there was approval required in that case, which was given by Sh. Amit Sethi verbally. It was further mentioned that API Team refused to accept CAF without approval. According to this OP, it all happened in confusion and now, the sufferer is their consumer (i.e. the complainant) as he had given the MDN (7814233331) on the pamphlet. Admittedly, the mobile connection was obtained by OP No.3 for the complainant pretending that he had the proof of residence and the same would continue. It is admitted that the said connection was disconnected subsequently. As per Annexure OP-3/5, the complainant had given MDN on the pamphlet and he was suffering due to the disconnection of the said mobile phone. The contention of the complainant that he had given this mobile phone in the advertisement given by him and suffered damages, is, therefore, not only proved from the evidence adduced by the complainant but has also been admitted by OP through this Email. 12. The deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3/appellant is, therefore, clear. In order to increase his business and that of OPs No.1 and 2, the OP No.3 issued add on mobile connection without collecting the documents, which he were required to collect in view of TRAI guidelines. If any approval was obtained, it should have been obtained by him in writing and only thereafter, the connection should have been released. The OP No.3, however, did not obtain any approval, by-passed the TRAI guidelines and got the telephone connection released by misrepresenting the facts due to which ultimately, the connection was disconnected and the actual sufferer was the complainant. The case of OP No.3 does not fall under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act because OP No.3 does not fall under the definition of ‘Telegraph Authority’. It may be mentioned that Section 7-B applies only in the case if the dispute arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line appliance/apparatus is or has been provided. The OP No.3, therefore, cannot take the benefit of the authority General Manager, Telecom (Supra). 13. The learned District Forum while allowing the complaint directed to restore the add on connection in favour of the complainant within seven days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. This order, so far as it relates to OPs No.1 and 2, is in violation of the Supreme Court’s authority referred to above. The learned District Forum could not pass this order directing the restoration of the add on connection. This direction, therefore, is liable to be set aside. So far as the direction to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical harassment along with Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation is concerned, the same shall remain intact and would operate against OP No.3/appellant. 14. With this modification, the appeal filed by OPs No.1 and 2 i.e. Reliance Communication Ltd. etc. bearing FA No.409 of 2010 is allowed and the appeal filed by OP No.3 Sh. Varinder Gupta bearing FA No.414 of 2010 is dismissed. 15. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 14th March 2011. Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION (IN APPEAL NO.409 OF 2010) Argued by: Sh. D. K. Singal, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.2. Dated the 14th day of March, 2011. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by OPs No.1 and 2 has been allowed whereas the appeal bearing F.A. No.414 of 2010 filed by the OP No.3 has been dismissed. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (NEENA SAHDHU) MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (APPEAL NO.414 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 12.11.2010 Date of Decision: 14.03.2011Sh. Varinder Gupta, Franchise Owner C/o Reliance Web World Express, SCO No.2431, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. ……Appellant. Versus1. Sh. Subhash Chander, Prop. M/s Santokh diagnostic Laboratory, #846, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh. 2. Reliance Communication Ltd., SCO No.135-136, sector 9-C, Chandigarh and having its circle office at Tower-F, Ground Floor, DLF Building, Plot No.2, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh through its authorized representative Mr. Garry Rana. 3. Sh. Amitesh Makhan, Cluster Head, C/o Reliance Communication Ltd., SCO No.135-136, sector 9-C, Chandigarh and having its circle office at Tower-F, Ground Floor, DLF Building, Plot No.2, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh. ....Respondents. BEFORE: MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Sh. D. K. Singal, Advocate for respondent No.2. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.409 of 2010 titled ‘Reliance Communication Ltd. and another Vs. Sh. Subhash Chander and another’ vide which this appeal has been dismissed. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. March 2011. Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] PRESIDING MEMBER SD/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | |
