D.O.F. 01.02.2010
D.O.O. 27.08.2011
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 27th day of August, 2011.
C.C.No. 45/2010
Vinoj U.
Neethi Vasthralaya, : Complainant
Payangadi
PIN : 670 303
1. Tata Tele Services Limited,
Unit IV B, 2nd Floor,
Leela Infopark,
Plot No:5, Infopark, : Opposite Parties
Kusumagiri P.O.,
Kakkanad, Kochi – 682 030.
(Rep. by Adv. S.K. Krishna Kumar)
2. Skytech Enterprises,
Topland Grand Bazar Building,
Bellard Road, Kannur-1
.
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay 6,000 including the excess charge paid by the complainant.
The case in brief set up by the complainant are as follows : The complainant availed a Tata Docomo cellular phone connection with subscriber No. 8089995860. He was also availed a connection under hand set bundle offer. In this advertisement opposite party shown the charge 12 paise per secnd whereas they have taken 17 paise from him for his call to U.A.E. His complaint with respect to charging the excess amount had not been considered by opposite party. When he tried in other numbers he was charged on 12 paise per second. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable in law. Further contention of opposite party is as follows: Under the hand set bundle offer the customer would be charged 17 paise per second for ISD calls. Complainant availed connection knowing this fact fully well. There is no deficiency in service. As the dispute has arisen between a service provider and the subscriber and is with respect to a cellular phone connection, it has to be resolved by recourse to the remedy provided under Section 73 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and hence the Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate up on the subject matter of the present complaint.
Before going deep in the merit of the case it is necessary from the outset to decide the question of maintainability without which it cannot be proceeded further.
This is a case in which the question of maintainability discussed and decided once in favour of the complainant. But at this stage the position of law changed in different direction in the light of the decision in Revision Petition No. 1703 of 2010 by the Hon’ble National Commission. The decision of the National Commission made it clear undoubtedly that any dispute between the subscriber and the Telegraph Authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only. It has also specifically directed that the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Amr.(2009) 8 Scc 481 is binding on all subordinate courts. In the light of this decision of the Apex Court there is no scope for entertaining the present complaint in hand. Hence without taking into consideration other aspect the above case stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1. SIM card.
A2. Poster
Exhibits for the opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite parties
Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
