BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 20^th June 2013

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                        SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.110/2013

(Admitted on 27.4.2013)

Mr.Shrihari M.B.

Managing Partner,

Essam Financial Consultants,

Classic Arcade, K.S. Rao Road,

Mangalore 575 001 D.K.                        …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Anil Kumar.K.)

          VERSUS

The Authorized Signatory,

Ms. Bharthi Airtel Ltd.,

Paradigm Plaza,

AB Shetty Circle,

Pandeshwara,

Mangalore 575 001.                      ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 (Opposite Party: Exparte)

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.       1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant stated that, he is the subscriber of mobile No. 9845736597, 9740076597, 9902339148 and land line connection No.0824-4250200 (Broadband) from Opposite Party.  It is stated that, recently the Opposite Party has started to charge excess bill than for the metered calls in the above stated phone numbers and used to charge for the unknown numbers to which the Complainant had never used to call or made any calls to such numbers such as SAARC numbers as shown in the bills issued by the Opposite Party.  It is stated that, the Opposite Party has failed to issue bills for meter calls of above said numbers and thereby violated the TRAI regulations and committed deficiency in service by collecting excess bill amounting to Rs.11,468/- for the above numbers.  Hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to repay the excess bill amount of Rs.11,468/- charged for the above phone numbers and to pay interest thereon from the date of accident i.e. from 1.5.2011 till refund of excess bill amount along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.      1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party R.P.A.D. Opposite Party inspite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA.  Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party.  The postal acknowledgement marked as Court Doc. No.1.

III.     1.  In support of the complaint, Mr. Shrihari.M.B. (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C7. Opposite Party placed exparte.

          In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether this FORA has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

4. What order?

                        We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                          Point No.(i): Negative.

                         Point No.(ii) to (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.     1.  POINT NO. (i):

In the present case, in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan & Another in 2009 AIR SCW 5631 (paras 6, 7, 9) it is observed that, when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.  The above said observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is referred hereunder:-

In a case General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan & Another reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5631 (Paras 6, 7, 9) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

 “Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), Ss.11, 17, 21- Telegraph At (13 of 1885), S.7B- Consumer Fora – Jurisdiction – Disputes about telephone bills – Beyond jurisdiction – Telegraph Act being special Act overrides 1986 Act.

AIR 2003 Ker 152, Reversed

(Paras 6,7,9)

Chrnological Paras”

Further, the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case, Lokesh Parashar Vs. M/s Idea Cellur Ltd reported in Revision Petition No.3780 of 2011 also observed that – “The Consumer FORA has no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes in respect of the telephone bills”.

By keeping in view of the above said observation, we are of the considered opinion that this district FORA has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of dispute with regard to the outgoing calls and other facilities offered by the telephone service provider.  The dispute of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party started to charge excess bill than for the metered calls and collected excess bill amount of Rs.11,468/-. That means the dispute is related usage of calls more particularly related to the billing disputes or any other compliance as expected by the telephone facility provider.  Therefore, the dispute of this nature has no jurisdiction to entertain before the Consumer FORA’s.  The subscriber/Complainant shall refer the matter before the appropriate authority as there is a special remedy provided in Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of the telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.  Hence the complaint deserves to be closed. No order as to costs.  Since this FORA has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, discussing the rest of the issues does not arise.

          In the result, we pass the following:                     

ORDER

The complaint is closed. No order as to costs.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th day of June 2013)

PRESIDENT                MEMBER                         MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr. Shrihari.M.B. – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex. C1 – 14.2.2011: Bill.

Ex. C2 – 12.5.2011: Bill.

Ex. C3 – 25.5.2011: bill.

Ex. C4 – 27.2.2013: Bill.

Ex. C5 – 21.6.2012: Letter of complainant.

Ex. C6 – 31.8.2012: Letter of Complainant.

Ex. C7 – 20.11.2012: Office copy of legal notice sent to OP with postal receipt and acknowledgement.

COURT DOUCMENT:

Doc:No.1: Postal Acknowledgement.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

- Nil-

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:        

- Nil -

Dated:20-6-2013                                        PRESIDENT