Goutam Chattopadhyay,

son of D. P. Chattapadhyay,

residing at 18/19, Ram Gopal Smriti Ratna Lane,

P.S. & District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         VODAFONE EAST  LIMITED, 

            having its registered office

            at 11,  Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street,

            Kolkata – 700017.

2.         M/S. OKAY CALL CENTRE  PVT.

having its place of business

at 5P, M.G. Road, Howrah Maidan,

P.S. &  District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               Dissecting the complaint it is collected that the present consumer dispute

filed by Shri  Goutam Chattopadhyay  issuing mobile connecting activities i.e., internet plan namely MBB-C-V-650-30d-3GB-FU-3G being  mobile no. 9051063354  the O.P namely  Vodafone East Ltd.

2.               Facts reveal that Shri  Goutam Chattopadhyay  obtained the above internet plan with precondition that he ( complainant ) shall have to pay Rs. 700/- only for 30 days without any other charges and accordingly took the service and thereby astonished having received a bill of Rs. 1071.93, made contact with the O.Ps. and paid the bill of Rs.700/- as per assurance, thereby the excess amount of  Rs. 371.93 will be adjusted in the next bill. But in spite of that the O.Ps. further claimed a bill  of  Rs. 1,202.27 including late payment charges of Rs 100/- on 06-05-2013. Having been dissatisfied with the unusual bill received on 06-05-2013 he made contact with the O.Ps. along with advocate’s letter and also requested the O.P. to restore the connectivity of the said connection which was disconnected by the representative of the O.Ps., but all the attempts were in vain.   Moreover, the O.Ps. did not care to reply and findig no other alternative the petitioner filed the instant case as he suffered harassment, mental agony and also loss in his business activities as an advocate, and prayed relief and compensation from the Forum in connection with this complaint petition.

3.               To counter the complainant’s case the O.P. by filing a written version asserted that the complainant has no legal right to sue this complaint in the Forum as such an application is not maintainable before any court including District  Forum under C.P. Act, 1986 as  barred U/S 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 wherein any dispute arisen out shall be determined by the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. The question of deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the O.P. does not arise. In such circumstances, it  prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.        Upon pleadings of both parties three points arose for determination :

i)         Whether the case is maintainable under C.P. Act, 1986 ?

ii)         Whether O.P. was negligent in activities and caused  deficiency in    

            service by not  taking due care for linking  the existing system

            with the Vodafone net work ?

iii)        Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.         All  the points are  taken up together for consideration. On proper scanning of the argument as advanced by the agents of both parties and also reviewing the material documents as filed by the parties, we have searched out some of the discrepancies as per complaint which are to be decided in this case to arrive at just conclusion. It has been pleaded that the mobile connection / connectivity of the complainant was suspended for various malpractices / illegal by the complainant. The O.P. has raised the following points:

i)                    The instant petition is not maintainable at any court or any Forum under C.P. Act, 1986.

ii)                  The complaint petition as to be decided U/S 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 by an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government.

6.   We have heard the ld. Councils for the complainant  and the O.Ps. and the citations submitted by the parties.

7.   The ld. Council of the O.P. during arguments submitted that in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, the jurisdiction of the Forum has been barred. But the O.P. has failed to show any rules, regulations or provisions as to how the licensee like spice communication and ideal cellular has come into the definition of Telegraph Authority. Moreover, the dispute involved in the present case is not between the Telegraph Authority and the complainant ; it is between the licensee to whom the licensee has been issued U/S 4 of the Telegraph Act for manning and providing mobile telecom services by Central government. Even from the perusal of the proforma licensee agreement it is revealed that it has been specifically mentioned in the said agreement that any dispute between consumer and licensee regarding the Telephone Services will be between the licensee and the consumer and the licensee i.e., Central Government or Telegraph Authority would not be in any manner involved or liable for the same. In this case powers of the telegraph authority have not been delegated to the licensee for the purpose of Section 7B of the  Telegraph Act ( referring Clause no. 31.5 of  Customer Service ). 

8.   Moreover, the dispute relating to telegraph line, appliance etc. are referable to arbitration through arbitrator. But the present dispute is not related to telegraph line appliances or apparatus rather the dispute in question is regarding various unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. and the wrongful levying of certain illegal charges in the bill amount and the said dispute is squarely covered under the provision of C.P. Act, 1986.

9.   Previously the telephone services were solely and exclusively established and maintained by the Central Government but with the passage of time and with the advancement of the technology, certain private operators have been given licences for controlling and regulating  their working. Under the T.R.A. India Act 1997 the jurisdiction of the  C.P. Act to entertain the dispute between individual consumer and mobile services provider has been specifically recognized.

10. Under the C.P. Act,1986 the Consumer Forum was established. Under the Act it has got the jurisdiction not only to pass direction and award, compensation and damages to the individual consumer but the Forum can also issue direction and order for payment of compensation, keeping in view the interest of the consumer at large. For which it is a fit case where we feel it necessary to issue direction to the O.P. keeping in view the interest of numerous consumers. Moreover, in case of petty consumer disputes, to direct a poor consumer to approach the  Central Government for appointment of an Arbitrator for the adjudication of his small dispute, would be

just the denial of justice to him especially when the legislation has caused a consumer friendly legislation for better protection of the consumer  rights and the remedy available at the door step of the consumer District  Consumer Forum have been established.

11. Moreover, it is to be pointed out  that the O.P. only pleaded on his behalf that the complaint against that authority is not maintainable and nothing else has been explained. So when such type of statutory authority fails to act, the poor consumer is left with no alternative than to invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer  Forum established for the purpose of protection  of the consumer rights. 

      Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Accordingly  the  points are disposed of.               

Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  214 of 2013 ( HDF 214 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest against o.p.  with litigation  costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

      The O.P. is hereby directed to restore the connection of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The O.P. is also directed to pay a  compensation of Rs 10,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice against the complainant which caused  mental tension and prolonged harassment of the complainant.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.      

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                          

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.