Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/202/2015

Videocon Telecom Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sohar Singh - Opp.Party(s)

PK Kukreja, Adv.

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	202 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	21.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	02.11.2015

 

1. Videocon Telecom Limited, Formerly known as Quadrant Televentures Limited (formerly known as HFCL Infotel Limited), Plot No.B-71, Phase-VII, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali – 160055, through its authorized representative i.e. Mr.Abhimanyu Singh (Executive Legal). 
2. Videocon Telecom Limited, Formerly known as Quadrant Televentures Limited (formerly known as HFCL Infotel Limited), Autocars Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad, Bihar 431005, through its Authorized Representative.
3. Videocon Telecom Limited, Formerly known as  Quadrant Televentures Limited (formerly known as HFCL Infotel Limited), Chandigarh: SCO 417-418, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160035, through its authorized representative i.e. Mr.Abhimanyu Singh (Executive Legal). 

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Sohar Singh son of Janeshwar Dyal, resident of House No.80/9, Top Floor, Saini Vihar, Ph-4, Baltana, Dera Bassi, Mohali.

              ....Respondent/Complainant

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the appellants.

                  Sh. Dhawal Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent, alongwith Sh.Sohar Singh, respondent in person.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.07.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-

“In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 [a]  To activate the mobile number of the Complainant within seven days of receipt of copy of this order;

 [b]  To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [b] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [a] above.”

2.       The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had availed one postpaid mobile no. 9855312111 of Idea Cellular Network, for the past 8-9 years, and got the same ported to network of the Opposite Parties. It was stated that before getting the said network of the Opposite Parties, the complainant had cleared all his dues of Idea Cellular Service, on 19.08.2014. The said network of the Opposite Parties worked very well till 22.11.2014, on the mobile number of the complainant. However, on 23.11.2014, the Opposite Parties barred the calls on mobile phone number of the complainant, on the ground that some amount was due to be paid by him, to Idea Cellular Service Provider. As such, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.214/-, to the Idea Network on 22.11.2014, vide receipt No.163057. It was further stated that since the Opposite Parties refused to accept the said receipt, as such, on their directions, the complainant repaid the said amount, to Idea Network, on 24.11.2014, but despite that, they did not activate connection of the said mobile number. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking various reliefs.
3.       The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, for portability of the mobile number, in question. It was stated that, as per the terms and conditions settled between the parties, the complainant agreed to clear all the outstanding, billed or unbilled, with the Donor Service Provider i.e. M/s Idea Cellular Limited, before portability of connection of the said mobile number, with network of the Opposite Parties, but he failed to do so. It was further stated that even notices sent to the complainant, in the shape of SMS, did not yield any result, as a result whereof, outgoing calls, on the said mobile number, were barred w.e.f. 07.11.2014, except for the emergency services and, thereafter,  the incoming calls were also barred thereon w.e.f. 22.11.2014. It was further stated that since the Donor Service Provider (M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) had also not intimated the Opposite Parties that dues had been finally paid by the complainant, to it, as also, no request was ever received from him (complainant) for restoration of the said services, as such, the Opposite Parties did not activate the same. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4.       The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5.       Since the complainant did not put in appearance, on 09.07.2015, when the case was fixed for arguments, the District Forum assumed that he (complainant) was not interested to address the same (oral arguments), and, as such, after hearing the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, it (District Forum), accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
6.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
7.       We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, alongwith Sh.Sohar Singh, respondent, in person, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
8.       The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the District Forum had no Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the instant complaint, in view of special remedy provided under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. He further submitted that since the District Forum was barred to entertain and decide, any dispute arising out of telephone bills, under the Act, as such, it was wrong, in accepting the complaint, filed by the complainant. He further submitted that the appellants had received non-payment disconnection request from the Donor Service Provider i.e. M/s Idea Cellular, on 07.11.2014, as a result whereof, various SMS in that regard were sent to the respondent, but he failed to clear the said dues, as a result whereof, outgoing calls were barred w.e.f. 07.11.2014, except for the emergency services and, thereafter,  the incoming calls were also barred thereon w.e.f. 22.11.2014. He further submitted that the appellants acted strictly as per the regulations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). He further submitted that, as such, the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
9.       On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, alongwith Sh.Sohar Singh, respondent, in person, submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
10.       The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the instant consumer complaint or not. It may be stated here that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, vide letter No.J-24/11/2014-CPU dated 07.03.2014, had circulated a copy of letter No.2-17/2013-Policy-I dated 24.01.2014 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Telecommunications, to the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as well as State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions of all State Governments and U.Ts.  Paras No.4 & 6 of the said letter are reproduced as under:-

“4.  The matter has been examined in this Department. It is mentioned that the matter referred to in the Hon’ble Supreme Court (General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Anr.) involved a dispute between Department of Telecommunications (DoT) as a service provider prior to the hiving off telecom services into a separate company namely Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). Since DoT was also the telegraph authority, reference was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the provisions of section 7B.  However, powers of the telegraph authority have neither been vested nor are available to private telecom service providers and BSNL. Therefore, recourse to section 7B in case of disputes between consumers and private service providers and BSNL would not be available. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment is sui generis in its application and has to be read with reference to the particular facts and circumstances of the case before it.

6.   In view of the above position, this Department is of the view that the request from Government of West Bengal proposing to consider preferring an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for making the position of law unambiguous in the context of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not required and the District Forums are competent to deal with the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers.”

11. ­­­­      Perusal of afore-extracted contents of the said letter reveal that the Consumer Foras are competent to deal with the disputes, arising between telecom consumers and telecom service providers. Thus, the objection taken by the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. It is therefore held that the District Forum had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the instant complaint.
12.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellants were right in barring the outgoing and incoming calls, on the mobile phone number of the respondent. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that since the respondent failed to pay the balance amount, which was due towards the Donor Service Provider i.e. M/s Idea Cellular Limited, despite giving him due opportunity, as such, they barred the call facilities, on his mobile number.  It may be stated here that perusal of relevant contents of email, at page 23 of the District Forum file, sent to the respondent, by Idea Cellular Limited i.e. the Donor Service Provider, clearly reveal that he (respondent) has cleared the outstanding amount, against the said mobile number, as it has been clearly written therein “…….outstanding amount against your number has already been cleared”. At the same, the respondent, while sending various emails dated 02.12.2014, 11.12.2014 and 03.01.2015, tried his level best, to inform the appellants, to prove that he had already cleared the outstanding amount, by mentioning therein the receipt nos. also, but they did not bother and, on the other hand, arbitrarily, disconnected call facilitates on his mobile number, on bald grounds, and did not activate the same.
13.       It may be stated here that, in the first instance, before porting connection to the said mobile number, it was required of the appellants, to confirm from the Donor Service Provider i.e. M/s Idea Cellular Limited, as to whether, there was any outstanding amount due against the respondent, to be paid to it or not, but they failed to do so. Secondly, when the respondent informed the appellants, vide emails dated 02.12.2014, 11.12.2014 and 03.01.2015, to prove that he had already cleared the outstanding amount, by mentioning therein receipt nos., they did not even care to reply the same. The respondent has taken all the steps, required on his part, by clearing his outstanding amount and informing the same to the appellants, but they did not bother and failed to activate the call facilities on the said mobile number. There was, thus, a gross negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellants, thereby causing mental agony and physical harassment to the respondent. The District Forum was also right, in holding so.
14.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties, alongwith Sh.Sohar Singh, respondent, in person.
15.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
16.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

02.11.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Rg