BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 288/2012 Filed on 22.08.2012
Dated : 04.02.2013
Complainant :
Sivadas V.P, Vadakke Peringott, Kaithapram, Mathamangalam P.O, M.M. Bazar (via), Kannur-670 306.
(Party in person)
Opposite party :
The Managing Director, Tata Tele Services Ltd., 2A, Old Ishwar Nagar, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 065.
(By adv. Peroorkada M.V. Vinod)
This O.P having been heard on 01.02.2013, the Forum on 04.02.2013 delivered the following :
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
Case of the complainant is as follows: Complainant had purchased Tata Docomo Photon Plus, 5 GB unlimited plan on 01.05.2012 by paying an amount of Rs. 1,200/-. But from 11.05.2012 to 13.05.2012 and from 28.05.2012 to 05.06.2012 the complainant was unable to browse due to non-connectivity of internet / Tata Docomo service availability at his house at Kaithapram where the opposite party was supposed to provide service. But it was realized that Tata photon has no service at Kaithapram at Kannur district. Further, complainant has pleaded that they have charged excess amount from him towards usage. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievance.
Opposite party remains ex-parte.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P6(a).
As seen from the averments in the complaint, the dispute appears to be regarding internet connection and the facility available for the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan & another that “In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Sec. 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Sec. 7 B of the Telegraph Act reads as under :
Sec. 7 B. Arbitration of Disputes : (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section. (2) The award of the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court. Rule 413 of the “Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules”. In the case in hand complainant has alleged that the complainant has been curtailed from availing the connection which brings the case within the ambit of the above ruling. It can be seen that the dispute is regarding availability of internet connection and the facility available for the same. As far as these kinds of disputes are concerned, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. Hence it is found that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide dispute regarding the service available under the above. Hence as per the dictum of the apex court, at present, in General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan & another we are of the view that this complaint cannot be entertained by this Forum. Hence the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate legal authority for redressal of his grievances if any.
In the result, the complaint is found not maintainable before the Forum and hence dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate legal authority for redressal of his grievances if any.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 4th day of February 2013.
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 288/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of receipt dated 01.05.2012 for Rs. 1,200/-.
P2 - Copy of e-mail from opposite party dated 16.05.2012
P2(a) - Copy of e-mail from opposite party dated 18.05.2012
P2(b) - Copy of e-mail from opposite party dated 19.05.2012
P2(c) - Copy of e-mail from opposite party dated 19.05.2012
P2(d) - Copy of e-mail from opposite party dated 29.05.2012
P2(e) - Copy of e-mail from complainant dated 22.06.2012
P2(f) - Copy of e-mail from opposite party dated 22.06.2012
P2(g) - Copy of e-mail from appellate kerala dated 25.06.2012
P2(h) - Copy of reply e-mail from complainant dated 26.06.2012
P3 - Copy of notice issued by complainant to OP dated 28.05.2012
P4 - Copy of notice issued by complainant to OP dated 28.05.2012
P5 - Copy of bill dated 15.05.2012 issued by opposite party
P5(a) - Copy of bill dated 15.06.2012 issued by opposite party
P5(b) - Copy of bill dated 15.07.2012 issued by opposite party
P6 - Copy of postal receipt
P6(a) - Copy of postal receipt.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
