D.O.F. 27.11.2012

                                            D.O.O. 17.06.2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. Roy Paul                     :                President

                   Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :               Member

                   Sri. Babu Sebastian         :               Member

Dated this the 17^th day of June,  2015.

C.C.No.392/2012

P.P. Ummer

‘Praveen’

Thottada                                                               :         Complainant

Kannur

(Rep. by Adv. K.P. Abida)

1.Tata Teleservices Ltd

    Vashi-COCO

    Bsel Tech Park, Gr flr shop No.7 &8

    Nr Vashi Railway Station

    Vashi, Navi Mumbai

    Mumbai – 400 703

2. Tata Indicom                                                     :         Opposite Parties

    10^th Floor, Tower-1

    Jeevan Bharati, 124

    Connaught Circus

    New Delhi – 110001

3.Tata Docomo

    Highway Arcade

    T.K. Junction

    Thana, Kannur

(All rep. by Adv. B.P. Saseendran)

O R D E R

Sri. Roy Paul, President.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties by the complainant for the relief and a direction to replace the net connection with a defect free new one or to refund its price with interest @ 6% and compensation with cost etc.

          The gist of the complaint is that :

On 29.04.2011 the complainant had availed a net connection from 1^st opposite party for a cost of  Rs.1699 and Rs.850 while he was working at Mumbai and subsequently he paid another sum of Rs.750 towards plan benefits.  At the time of availing connection the 1^st opposite party gave assurance that the service is available all over India including Kannur.  But after reaching Kannur from Mumbai he could not obtain net service from the opposite parties.  So he attributed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint.

          The opposite parties appeared on summons before the Forum and submitted their written version denying the pleadings in the complaint as mere and baseless allegation.  According to them there is no deficiency or negligence from their part towards the complainant.  As per the IndianTelegraph Act the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed. 

          On the basis of the pleadings of both sides the following issues was framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as a consumer?
3. Relief and cost?

The complainant examined as PW1 and documents from his side were marked as Exhibits A1 to A8.  Though the opposite parties filed a detailed version, they have not adduced any evidence from their part.

          For the sake of convenience the issue No.1 and 2 taken together for consideration.

          The complainant himself adduced his evidence as PW1 and his documentary evidence are marked as Ext.A1 to A8 also. Ext.A1 shows that the complainant availed the net connection from Mumbai by paying Rs.1699.  The Ext.A2 is dealt with a payment of Rs.850 to 1^st opposite party while Ext.A3 is another receipt for payment of Rs.700.  The definite case of the complainant is that he couldn’t get net service at Kannur, though the opposite parties assured about their net service throughout India and to substantiate his case the Exts. A4 and A5 also relied by the complainant.  From the recitals of Ext.A4 and A5 lawyer notice it is crystal clear that the opposite parties could not provide proper service to the complainant. 

During cross examination of the complainant (PW1) the opposite parties put a suggestion to him that “]e ImcW-§Ä sIm­pw s\äv IW-£³ In«m-Xn-cn-¡pw. td©v CÃm¯Xp sIm­mWv s\äv IW-£³ In«m-¯Xv F¶pw Bb-Xn-\m FXr-I-£n-I-fpsS tkh-\-¯n hogvN CÃ.”  That itself shows that as a service provider there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party.  Apart that the opposite parties absolutely failed to adduce any evidence either to corroborate their pleadings in the version or to rebutt the evidence adduced by PW1, the complainant. Under the above circumstance since the opposite party failed to provide proper service to the complainant that amounts to deficiency in service and unfair practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the issue No.1 found against the opposite parties and accordingly answered.

          Regarding the issue No.2, the opposite parties vehemently stated that as per the Indian Telegraph Act, this complaint will not stand before the Forum. They have relied one citation of Hon’ble Apex Court also, in support of their arguments by stating that telecommunication disputes cannot be adjudicated by Consumer Fora.  According to the complainant the dictom special law overrides the General Law is not applicable in the matter of Consumer Protection Act since it is a special enactment for the protection of the rights of consumers.  So the Indian Telegraph Act cannot over ride the Consumer Protection Act.  Moreover, the Telecom Regulating Authority of India Act 1997 also passed by the Pariliament.  As per section 25(i) of the said Act “The provision of these regulations in addition to any right can ........ upon the Consumer Protection Act Section 27(a) of the said Act says that Nothing contained in these regulation shall apply to any matter or issue for which any proceedings before any court, Forum or Consumer Protection Act .............................

.............. seek redressal of grievances. Hence we are of the opinion that this Forum have got ample jurisdiction in this matter where the consumer element involved. So the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint from the opposite parties, since against the assurance made by the opposite party they could not provide proper service to the complainant.  Hence the opposite parties are bound to make good the loss and inconvenience caused to the complainant due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  During the arguments, the complainant stated that he has obtained another net connection from another service provider by paying their charges, hence he has no need to replace his connection provided by the opposite parties.   Hence we the Forum found that refund of the connection charges with  compensation and cost will meet the ends of justice.  So the opposite parties are bound to refund the amount of Rs.1699 and Rs.850 alongwith a compensation of Rs.2000 and Rs.1000 as cost to the complainant.  The issue No.2 and 3 also answered accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs.1699 (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Nine only) with Rs.850 (Rupees Eight Hundred and Fifty only) received from the complainant along with Rs.2000 (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2015.

                         Sd/-                       Sd/-              Sd/-

                       President               Member         Member  

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Payment receipt dated 29.04.2011.

A2. Payment receipt dated 29.04.2011.

A3. Payment receipt dated 31.05.2011.

A4. Copy of lawyer notice dated17.01.2012.

A5. Copy of lawyer notice dated 14.03.2012.

A6.  Postal receipt.

A7.  Postal receipt.

A8.  Postal acknowledgment.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT