IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C. No. 134/2010 ( Filed on 04.10.2010)
Between:
Sri. Ajmal Khan. N.,
Ansar Manzil,
Kulasekharapathy,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. A.K. Satheesh) .... Complainant
And:
1. The Manager,
Customer Care Centre,
Idea Cellular Ltd.,
Questone Enterprises,
KSRTC Cross Road,
Pathanamthitta.
2. Authorised Signature represented
by Devi Suresh,
Post Paid Head,
Idea Cellular Ltd.,
Mercy Estate, 2nd Floor,
Ravipuram, M.G. Road,
Cochin – 682 015.
(By Adv. Koshy Thomas) .... Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainants’ case is that he is a customer of the opposite parties and he availed an internet connection of the opposite parties on 05.01.2010 under the “Plan 299” by paying ` 2,000 as security deposit and `100 as registration charges and the opposite parties activated internet facility to the complainant on the same day of the registration. In this plan, the opposite parties also offered 512 Mb free usage of internet. Since from the activation of the internet connection, opposite parties issued regular monthly bills, which are also paid by the complainant. But certain bills issued by the opposite parties are exorbitant. So the complainant made complaints against the said excess bills and asked the opposite parties to provide detailed bills for verification. The opposite parties told the complainant to remit the bills and also told that they shall verify the details and if any error is found, they will adjust the excess amount in the future bills. Accordingly, the complainant had paid upto the bill-dated 07.04.2010. Even after that also the opposite parties did not issued the detailed bills as requested by the complainant. Inspite they have continued to issue bills without any basis. So the complainant did not paid the subsequent bills. Thereafter, due to the non-payment of the bills, opposite parties disconnected the complainant’s internet connection and also issued an Advocate Notice dated 23.09.2010 demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 3,928 and 28 paise along with 24% interest being the outstanding dues of the complainant. The denial of detailed bills and the issuance of excess bills and the disconnection of the complainant’s connection by the opposite parties is a deficiency of service and is an unfair trade practice. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant had sustained mental agony and financial loss and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence, this complaint for the realisation of ` 35,000 with 12% interest as compensation along with cost of ` 2,000 from the opposite parties and for an order directing the opposite parties to provide detailed bills to the complainant.
3. First opposite party is exparte.
4. The second opposite party filed his version with the following main contentions: The second opposite party challenged the maintainability of this complaint in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7687/2004 (Judgment dated 01.09.2009 in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another). Further, they admitted that they have provided internet connection to the complainant under 299 Plan on 06.01.2010. Thereafter, they have issued regular monthly bills to the complainant for using the internet facilities of the opposite parties. All the first bills were remitted by the complainant, but the last bills are not remitted by the complainant and hence the complainant’s connection was disconnected for the non-payment of the bills. The opposite parties did not received any request or complaint from the complainant for the detailed bills upto September, 2010. But they have given the detailed bills in the month of September, 2010 when a request was received from the complainant for the same. The complainant is having a dues of Rs. 3,928 and 28 paise and hence a legal notice was issued to him. With the above contentions, the second opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint, as they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to the complainant.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points were raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs and Costs?
6. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A11 and B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. Point No.1: In this case, the opposite party challenged the maintainability of this complaint on the basis of the decision of the Hon”ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7687/2004 (Judgment dated 01.09.2009 in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another). According to the opposite party, as per the said ruling, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Foras in respect of the dispute between BSNL and its consumers are ousted as there is a remedy for the consumers as per Sec.7B of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the said ruling is applicable to the opposite parties as they are also functioning under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act. In the light of the said ruling, various decisions were also came from different Appex Forums including Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The opposite party also submitted a copy of the order of the Hon”ble NCDRC in Revision Petition No.1703/2010 between Prakash Varma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. and another. The said decision is squarely applicable to this case. Therefore, the contention regarding the maintainability of this complaint raised by the opposite party is sustainable and hence we find that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
8. Points 2 & 3: Since point No.1 is found against the complainant, these points are not considered. However, the complainant is entitled to get his grievances redressed. So the complainant is at liberty to seek remedy under Sec.7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
9. In the result, this complaint is dismissed with the above direction. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of August, 2011.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Muhammed Ansari.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Power of Attorney.
A2 : Bill for ` 378 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
A3 : Bill for ` 441 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
A4 : Bill for ` 618 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
A5 : Bill for ` 1,036 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
A6 : Letter dated 03.09.2010 issued by the complainant to the opposite
party.
A7 : Postal receipt (under certificate of posting sent by the complainant
to the opposite party.
A8 : Bill for ` 2,753 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
A9 : Letter dated 01.09.2010 sent by the opposite party to the
complainant.
A10 : Bill for ` 2,676 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
A11 : Advocate notice dated 16.09.2010 issued by the opposite party to
the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Bill for ` 2,753 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
(By Order)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Sri. Ajmal Khan. N., Ansar Manzil, Kulasekharapathy,
Pathanamthitta.
(2) The Manager, Customer Care Centre, Idea Cellular Ltd.,
Questone Enterprises, KSRTC Cross Road, Pathanamthitta.
(3) Devi Suresh, Post Paid Head, Idea Cellular Ltd.,
Mercy Estate, 2nd Floor, Ravipuram, M.G. Road,
Cochin – 682 015.
(4) The Stock File. `
