BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Rajiv Bagai, R/o H.No.2507, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.    Spice Communications Limited (Associate of Idea Cellular Ltd.,), C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali-160055, Punjab through the Branch Manager.

2.    Spice Communications Limited (Associate of Idea Cellular Ltd.,), SCO 495-496, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

3.    IDEA Cellular Ltd, 5^th Floor, Windsor CST Road, Kalina, Santa Cruz, Mumbai through its Managing Director.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Rishi Karan Kakkar, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Ankush Kalia, Adv. for OPs

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased telephone No.9855535197 issued as an Add on connection under Spice Life Long Plan with Zero rental having dynamic credit limit of Rs.1000/- per month from OP.  The complainant was informed that the dynamic credit limit would not be extended any further without his approval either in writing or on approval over customer care. The complainant never availed/applied for international calling facility and never extended the dynamic credit limit. In March, 2009, the complainant was directed to make additional payment of Rs.435/ - and he made the same on 09.03.09. Thereafter, the complainant received bill for an amount of Rs.1394.56 for the period of 16.2.2009 and 15.3.2009 which was paid by him under protest. Thereafter, the complainant also paid Rs.16,330/- to avoid disconnection  on 27.03.09. Ultimately, the complainant requested for the details of the calls made from his mobile. On perusal of the detailed bill, it came to light that several STD/ISD calls were made from his mobile phone even in the absence of any request for the same from his side. Nevertheless, the complainant requested for disconnection of the phone. Thereafter, the complainant was again asked to pay Rs.405/- on 6.4.2009 despite the fact that a sum of Rs.16735/- as additional payment over and above the payment has already made by him for billing period of 16^th March  to 15^th April, 2009. Thereafter, the complainant was again asked to pay Rs.4035.25 for the billing period 16.3.2009 to 15.4.09 and the same was also deposited by him.  As per the complainant, the telephone bill relates to ISD/STD calls which was never got activated by him. The complainant made repeated requests and visits to OPs to refund the excess amount charged by them but to no avail. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

2.             In their written reply, it has been pleaded that the complainant has been rightly charged for the period of 16.3.09 to 15.04.09 i.e. Rs.20,583.73 as basic usage for the ISD/STD calls made by him. It has been pleaded that the credit  limit of the complainant was revised as per usage payment history and creditability of the complainant as per company policy and the ISD facility is available to the complainant under part of plan which was availed by him i.e. Idea Life Long Plan at the time of connection issued to him.  It has further been pleaded that in view of the judgment of General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and others passed by the Hon’ble supreme Court, this complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             The OPs while referring to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India styled as General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan & Another, Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009 submitted that in view of the above said authority, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. So before adjudicating the matter on merits, it has become necessary to decide as to whether this Forum, established under the Consumer Protection Act, has jurisdiction to entertain the disputes relating to mobile connections. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above said judgment has held that under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the disputes concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus are required to be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government.

6.           Therefore, in view of the above cited judgment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute.

7.           Keeping the above foregoing findings, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The complainant may seek redressal of his grievance before the competent authority as per the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                                  Sd/-                            Sd/-