DOF.01.02.2010
DOO.18.08.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member
Dated this, the 18th day of August 2011
CC. 46 /2010
A.P.Siddique,
A.P.House,
Near District Court,
Thalassery 670 101 Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.V.R.Nasar)
TATA DOCOMO,
Vth Floor,
S.L.Plaza,
Palarivattom,
Cochin. Opposite parties
(Rep. by Adv.S.K.Krishna Kumar)
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
O R D E R
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of `25,000 as compensation.
The case of the complainant is that the opposite party Tata Tele Service Ltd. has given him an offer through message that if he recharges `50 he can make calls for the whole amount. Attracted by the offer complainant recharged for `50. But opposite party credited only `43.33 in his account. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version admitting that complainant has recharged for `50. But it was found complainant had recharged `50 much after the lapse of the offer. Till then to maintain good relation with the customer the balance amount of `6.67 debited to complainant’s billing account on 27.2.2010. In spite of the same this complaint has been filed. More over the dispute involved with respect to a cellular phone connection, it has to be resorted by recourse to the remedy provided under section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction. Thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been framed for consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of
opposite arty?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any remedy as
prayed for?
4. Relief and cost.
The evidence consist of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 marked.
Issues 1 to 4
Hon’ble National Commission in its latest decision against the order dated 10.2.2010 in Appeal No.295/7010 of the State commission Madhya Pradesh held that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.
The land mark decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom vs. M.Krishnan and another in Civil Appeal 7687/04 held that ‘when there is a special remedy provided in section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills then the remedy under the consumer protection act is by implication barred”. Both the above decisions make it clear in unequivocal terms that Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the telecom dispute. Thus there is no scope for entertaining the present complaint since it is not maintainable. Hence the issue No.1 found against complainant and other issues are left unanswered since it is felt unnecessary. Under the given circumstances where it is well settled that the special law overrides the general law the above complaint stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
