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

========

Lekh Raj s/o Sh.Amar Singh, r/o #2, Near S.B.O.P.,Village Daruya, Near Railway Station, U.T, Chandigarh (Mob. 9855611691, 9216885852)

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Spice Communications Limited, C-105, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali-160055, through its Managing Director

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT          

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Sh.Nikhil Sharma, Adv.proxy for Sh.Vishal Gupta Adv. for OP.

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL,  MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant took a mobile connection “Supersave-150” in Feb, 2005 from the OP.  The complainant stated that the OP assured him to give discounted 75 minutes of local airtime and 200 SMS free of GSM mobile, but the company has wrongly deducted STD call from his local discounted minutes without any prior intimation. On 7.03.07, he took another 30 minutes free STD pack for Rs.35/- per month but the OP again deducted wrongly Rs.45/- per month  without prior information of the complainant. The clipping charges, itemized bill charges and free minutes were also deducted from discounted local airtime.  When the complainant confirmed the same from the OP but no satisfactory answer was received by the complainant. Again the complainant wrote two letters to the OP on 25.05.07 and 19.08.07 but did not receive any reply for the same. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant prayed to direct OP to compensate for the mental and physical harassment caused to him.

2.             In their written reply the OP admitted the factual matrix of the case and stated that the discounted 75 minutes were deducted while using STD as per the policy of the company and the same have been rightly deducted, as the complainant himself opted for STD pack @ 30 for which Rs.45/- was rightly charged by the company. OP further stated that the company is having the STD pack for 30 minutes @ Rs.45/- per month and there is no STD pack @ 35 as alleged by the complainant.  As per the OP the complainant was duly informed through SMS that 200 SMS would be deactivated and instead of that 500 SMS @ Rs.10/- per month would be activated. OP stated that the complainant made a request dated 16.02.08 for discontinuation of the same and the same was discontinued at the end of the billing cycle. OP further submitted that similarly the itemized bill was also deactivated and the complainant was charged Rs.10/- as the complainant had duly requested for deactivation and the same was deactivated on the request of the complainant dated 16.02.08.  As regards the grievance of the complainant regarding clip charges @Rs.10/- per month, OP stated that the company has duly given the advertisement in the newspaper by way of public notice in the month of Oct, 2007 that the clip charges shall be charged @Rs.10/- per month.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP has pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             The contention of the complainant is that the OP has wrongly deducted STD call from his local discounted minutes and for another 30 minutes free STD pack instead of Rs.35/- per month they have also wrongly deducted Rs.45/- per month. The clipping charges, itemized bill charges and free minutes were also deducted from the discounted local airtime.  It is pertinent to mention that as and when the complainant made request for the discontinuation of the SMS pack, the same was discontinued at the end of the billing cycle. There is therefore no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

6.             On the other hand the contention of the Learned Counsel for the OP is that the discounted 75 minutes were deducted while using STD as per the policy of the company.  The complainant himself had opted for STD pack of 30 minutes for Rs.45/- per month. The Learned Counsel further contended that the complainant was duly informed through SMS that the 200 SMS would be deactivated and instead of that 500 SMS @ Rs.10/- per month would be activated and the same was also informed by way advertisement in the newspaper in the month of October, 2007, as public notice. The Learned Counsel has also referred to the latest Judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of India in case titled as ‘General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan and others’ III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC) that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the India Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.

7.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that firstly the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and secondly in view of the above mentioned Judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishanan (Supra), the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.  There is no merit in the present complaint.  Hence, the same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

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