DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of December 2009.
Present : Smt. Seena.H (President)
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member) C.C.No.99/2009
V. Ramachandran S/o. S. Krishnankutty Pranavam Puthur Road Palakkad. - Complainant ( Party in person) V/s 1. The Nodal Officer Idea Cellular Ltd Mercy Estate, 3rd Floor Ravipuram, M G Road, Cochin – 628 105, Ernakulam (Adv T.S. Sunil) 2. The Officer in Charge Idea Cellular Shop Mannil Arcade Opp. LIC Office, Near KSRTC Palakkad – 678 006 3. Sri. Harish Representative of Idea Cellular Mannil Arcade Opp. LIC Office, Near KSRTC Palakkad – 678 006 - Opposite parties
O R D E R By Smt. Seena.H, President Case of the complainant in brief : The grievance of the complainant is regarding charging of excess bill amount in connection with the subscription of the net setter internet connection. Complainant herein subscribed an internet connection from the opposite parties. As per the scheme upto 1 GB usage was free for 3 months and up to 512 MB for subsequent months. Complainant need to pay internet charge only when the usage exceeds the stipulated one. Complainant started - 2 - using the net connection from 03/06/2009 onwards. On 29/06/2009 complainant received a bill dated 26/06/2009 for the period from 03/06/2009 to 25/06/2009 for an amount of Rs.2594.54. Complainant after verification understood that he has only used 700 MB and hence he is not liable to pay the said bill amount. After much talks and correspondence with the opposite parties, an amount of Rs.1204.82 was reduced from the bill amount. Again complainant contacted opposite parties and now an amount of Rs.120/- was also reduced. Opposite parties informed the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.1170/-. As the complainant has not used the internet connection for that much amount, complainant paid only the minimum charge of Rs.335/-. Subsequently on 21/07/2009 opposite parties disconnected the internet connection. When complained, opposite parties assured that the connection will be reinstated within 24 hours. According to complainant, so far connection has not been reinstated by the opposite parties. The act of opposite parties in reducing the bill amount a number of times on making complaint is definitely deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to issue the correct bill, to reinstate connection and pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation.
1st opposite party entered appearance and filed vakalath. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were set exparte. Since 1st opposite party has not filed version in time, an Interim application was filed to receive version condoning delay. Interim Application was allowed on cost to the complainant. 1st opposite party failed to pay the ordered cost and hence version was not taken on file.
The evidence adduced on the part of the complainant consists of the affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A11. 1st Opposite party has not filed any affidavit. Now the issues for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2 The specific case of the complainant is that opposite parties charged excess bill amount - 3 -
for the internet usage. Thereafter on complaint, bill amount was reduced twice. According to the complainant, he has not exceeded his permissible limit and therefore is liable to pay only the minimum charge. Even though the minimum charge was paid, opposite parties illegally disconnected the connection.
The case of the complainant has been born out from the chief affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A11 documents. Opposite parties has not adduced any evidence contrary to that one adduced by the complainant. Hence the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged. Even though 1st opposite party has not filed any version or affidavit, it was argued by the learned counsel for 1st opposite party that in the light of the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in General Manager Vs M. Krishnan Nair, the forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complainant where in the Honourable Supreme Court has held that in disputes relating to telephone bills,when there is a special remedy under section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication bared.
In full respect to the Honourable Supreme Court of India, before relying upon the above said authority, we would like to discuss Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act is reproduced as under:
Section 7B : Arbitration of Disputes: - (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this act, if any disputes concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the Telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line. Appliance or apparatus is or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section.
2. The award of the arbitrator appointed under the sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court. - 4 -
A careful reading of the Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act reveals that the disputes relating to telegraph line, appliance or apparatus and too with the telegraph authority are referable to Arbitration.
The 'Telegraph Authority' has been defined under Section 3 (6) of the Indian Telegraph Act, which is reproduced as under: Section 6: Telegraph authority means the Director General of posts and Telegraphs, and includes any officer empowered by him to perform all or any of the functions of the telegraph authority under this Act.
Private Telecom service providers like opposite parties are licensees and they cannot come under the definition of Telegraph authority. The disputes involved in the present case is not between the telegraph authority and the complainant. It is between the licensees to whom the licence has been issued under section 4 of Telegraph Act for maintaining and providing mobile telecom service by Central Government and the complainant.
If the licensee fails to maintain/fulfill the condition of the licence agreement then the Telegraph Authority or the Central Government as the case may be can take action against the licensee including termination of his licence. The powers of the Telegraph Authority have not been delegated to the licensee for the purpose of Section 7 B of Telegraph Act.
Even otherwise, the disputes relating to telegraph line, appliances or apparatus are referable to Arbitration. But the present dispute is not related to telegraph line appliances or apparatus rather the dispute in question is regarding various unfair trade practices adopted by the opposite parties and for wrongfully levying certain illegal charges in the bill amount and the said dispute is squarely covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the act of opposite parties - 5 - amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part for which the complainant has to be adequately compensated.
In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- as cost. Opposite parties are further directed to reinstate internet connection on application by the complainant failing which a further amount of Rs.2,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of December 2009. PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD) MEMBER (SD)
APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Idea Bill dated 26-June 2009 for Rs.2494.54 Ext. A2 – Statement of account as per Invoice No.0014629255 dated 26-June 2009
3. Ext. A3 - Idea Invoice No. 0014629255 dated 26-06 2009 for the period 30/5/09 to 25/06/09 4. Ext. A4 – Copy of letter received through Yahoo mail dated sunday, July 5, 2009 5. Ext. A5 – Copy of letter received through Yahoo mail dated Wednesday, July 8, 2009 6. Ext. A6 – Copy of letter received through Yahoo mail dated Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7. Ext. A7 – Copy receipt dated 11/07/09 for Rs.335/- 8. Ext. A8 - Copy of bill dated sunday, 26 July , 2009 for Rs.2754.65 9. Ext.A9 – Statement of Account as per Invoice No.0014820765 dated 26-Jul- 2009 10. Ext. A10 - Copy of Invoice No.0014820765 dated sunday, 26 July , 2009 for Rs.2754.65 11. Ext.A11 - Idea Bill dated 26-Aug 2009 for Rs.2854.65 as per Invoice No.0015024077 - 6 -
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Forums Exhibits Nil Costs Allowed Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent Date of fair c
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
