BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.169/2012
Dated this the 30th day of May 2012.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
ORDER
By G. Yadunadhan, President:
The petition was filed on 19-4-2012. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had subscribed for pre-paid mobile connection offered by the opposite parties. The aforesaid pre-paid connection was allowed to the complainant under a special scheme of allotting fancy numbers to its customers. As the complainant was interested in the scheme offered, she had subscribed for a fancy number with the opposite parties. The scheme required the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- and other auxiliary charges to avail the benefits offered under the special scheme. The complainant, as required by the scheme offered by opposite parties paid the stipulated amount of Rs.50000/- along with the charges amounting to Rs.350/-. After the fulfillment of the required monetary consideration, the complainant was allotted a SIM card having a fancy registration No. 9744666666. The complainant expected that she would be catered to with all the usual and trade privileges to the services provided by the opposite parties. The complainant had been using this number as one of her contact numbers, while residing in India. On 24-7-2010 when the complainant had sought to use the said fancy number she was surprisingly confronted with a failure message from the customer care center. The message confirmed that the services to the fancy number had been de-activated and that the complainant was not authorized to use the number of the services thereto. The complainant, upon knowledge of disconnection, sent a letter dated 26-7-2010 citing the problem to opposite party No.1. Through the said letter she conveyed her inconvenience due to the sudden de-activation of the fancy number and had specifically requested for re-installation of the number and the services. As a last resort, the complainant had also sent a registered lawyer notice dated 6-8-2010 citing her inconvenience and claiming the estimated damages caused to her. The said notice was received by the opposite party on 20-8-2010. Till date no response has been received, neither has the connection been re-installed nor has any compensation been paid to the complainant. Therefore complainant is seeking relief against the opposite parties directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- along with costs.
Heard the complainant in detail. In all the telephone cases opposite party has relied upon the decision of the Prakash Varma Vs Idea Cellullar Limited 2010. On perusal of the records we find that the question that arose for our consideration is whether the complainant is maintainable before this Forum. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission and also Prakash Varma Vs Idea Cellullar Limited 2010 Madhyapradesh. On perusal of those decisions it is found that Hon’ble Supreme Court have taken a view that any dispute between the subscriber and the telephone authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only. The Hon’ble National Commission also has followed the same view in Prakash Varma Vs Idea Cellullar Limited 2010, it is found that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have taken a view that a subscriber and the service providers with regard to telegraph connection cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Foras constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Under these circumstances the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of May 2012.
Date of filing:19.04.2012.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
