DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 206 of 06-05-2010<br /> Decided on : 28-07-2010 <br /> <br /> Paramveer Singh Proprietor of M/s. Perfect Security Agency, S.C.O. 36 Phase I, Model Town, Near T .V. Tower, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Vodafone Essar Limited, Peninsula, Corporate Park, Ganpatrao kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai through its M.D.<br /> 2.Vodafone Essar South Limited, C-131, Industrial Area Phase VIII, Mohali 160071 through its Regional Officers<br /> 3.Manager Vodafone Essar Limited, Mall Road, Bathida.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : In person <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. David Sadiora, counsel for <br /> opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.<br /> Opposite parties No. 3 exparte. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a businessman having post paid mobile connection No. 9888518127 and he has been paying the bills regularly. The last date for payment of his mobile connection was 26-04-2010 but the opposite parties in the afternoon of 25-04-2010 stopped the outgoing and incoming calls of his mobile connection and he remained untouched for about 18-20 hours with his work. On 25-04-2010, he was out of station to attend the business meeting and he sent his security guard namely Om Parksh to deposit the bill but the store and office of the opposite parties at Bathinda was closed on 25-04-2010 at 4.30 p.m. After coming back on 26-04-2010, the complainant paid the bills and thereafter he demanded complaint register but opposite party No. 3 refused to give the register. The complainant made written complaint to opposite party No. 3 in this regard, but he refused to accept the same. The complainant alleged that due to the adamant attitude of the opposite parties he has suffered mental tension as well as financial loss.<br /> 2. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed joint reply and took preliminary objection that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that as per the latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnana and Ors the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implicated barred. It has been submitted that the opposite parties have intimated the complainant through message dated 25-04-2010 to deposit the bill within in one day, in case the complainant fails to deposit the same, his incoming and outgoing facility would be barred. It has been pleaded that it was just a reminder given to the complainant but his incoming and outgoing facility has never been barred at any point of time.<br /> 3. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against it. <br /> 4. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings. <br /> 5. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. <br /> 6. The complainant is holding post paid connection No. 9888518127 and is subscriber of the opposite parties. It is admitted fact that last date for paying the bill dated 09-05-2010 was 26-06-2010 and he paid the bill on 26-04-2010 at 9.58 a.m. Moreover, the complainant sent his security guard namely Om Parkash to deposit his bill at 4.30 p.m. on 25-05-2010 as he was out of station, but since the office of the opposite parties was closed he could not deposit the bill. The opposite parties have no where pleaded that complainant ever made any default in payment of bills. Instead of waiting for the last date of deposit of bill, the opposite parties barred the incoming and outgoing facility of the mobile connection of the complainant for 20 hours and this fact is corroborated from Ex. C-3 i.e. detail of the calls made by the complainant from his mobile phone, which reveals that after making the call at 15.24.47 on 25-04-2010 next call was made on 26-04-2010 at 11.35.38 from the mobile connection of the complainant whereas on the other dates continuous calls have been made/received from the mobile of the complainant without any interruption. The complainant is running a security agency and as per Ex. C-3 mobile connection of the complainant have been used continuously as he has to keep in touch with various persons in connection with his profession. Thus, due to barring of outgoing and incoming calls of his mobile connection, he must have suffered mental harassment. <br /> 7. The case law upon which the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have relied is of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled General Manager, Telecom Vs. M Krishnan & Another. Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads as under :-<br /> “Section 7B, Arbitration of Disputes -<br /> (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.” <br /> The said case law is also not applicable in the present case as Sectrion 7B relates to landline connection only and where the dispute is between the Director General of Posts and Telegraph and the consumers. In this regard, support can be sought from First Appeal No. 1172 of 2009 decided on 22-02-2010 by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, titled as Spice Communication Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Gurinder Kaur and another, wherein it has been held and the full clarification has been given as follows : <br /> “ 17. Now the question arises is whether the appellants i.e. private service providers are the telegraph authority within the meaning of Section 3(6) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or in other words are they the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs or they are the officers empowered by him to perform all or any of the functions of the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ?<br /> 18. Admittedly the private service providers are the licencees to operate private mobile lines under Section 4(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Therefore, they cannot be equated with the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs nor they can be termed as the officers appointed by the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs to discharge the functions of the telegraph authority. They are only the licencees. Therefore, any dispute between a licencee and their consumer is not covered by the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.<br /> 22. Similarly proviso (B) to Section 14(a) of the TRAI Act protects the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by providing that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to any complaint filed by an individual consumer before the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission. From this angle also it is clearly proved that the private service providers are neither governed by the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 nor the jurisdiction of the District Forum over the private service providers is ousted rather it is protected.”<br /> 8. In view of the discussion held above, it is held that the private service providers are not covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & another's and the consumers/customers have the right to challenge the actions of the private service providers by filing complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> 9. Thus, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the record produced on file by the parties, this Forum is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation be awarded to the complainant. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation for mental harassment. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 28-07-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />