The OPs contention that complainant not a consumer as the mobile number not registered in his name but in the name of organisation falling under the purview of commercial purpose is not tenable as because the Organisation being a Juristic identity can not itself use the mobile phone physically. Being a natural person and an office bearer as Mayor in Counsel of the said municipality, complainant was entitled to use the connection being duly authorised (as averred by him through affidavit) and as such he is well covered as a consumer, as defined u/s 2 (5) (iii) of the CP Act 2019.

Further, the various Judgements under reference by OPs stating Consumer forum having no jurisdiction on Telecom companies and further contention u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act for disputes concerning telephone line, appliances or apparatus arising between telegraph authority and subscriber shall be determined through Arbitration only, which shall be conclusive and shall not be questioned by Court of Law These are taken up together and examined in the light of following recent Judgement of Apex Court i.e. Hon’ble Supreme Court  and a larger bench, which appears to be a pointer. The Civil Appellate Jurisdiction -.Justice Y. Chandrachud, J Surya Kant, J Vikram Nath;  dated February 16, 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 923 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 28615 of 2016) with Civil Appeal No 1389 of 2022 & Civil Appeal No 4274 of 2016 in the matter of Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(o) - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 7B – which states inter alia “existence of an arbitral remedy under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum - It would be open to a consumer to opt for the remedy of arbitration, but there is no compulsion in law to do so and it would be open to a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies which are provided under the Act of 1986, now replaced by the Act of 2019.”.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(42) - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 2(o) - The insertion of the expression 'telecom services' in the definition which is contained in Section 2(42) of the Act of 2019 cannot, for the reasons which we have indicated be construed to mean that telecom services were excluded from the jurisdiction of the consumer forum under the Act of 1986 - Section 2(o) of the Act of 1986 wide enough to comprehend services of every description including telecom services. (Para 14, 20).Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The Act of 1986 is not a general law but a special law that has been enacted by Parliament specifically to protect the interest of consumers. [Overruled General Manager, Telecom v. M Krishnan, (2009) 8 SCC 481] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(o) - Scope of expression 'service' discussed - a service of every description would fall within the ambit of the statutory provision. (Para 9) ,Conflict of laws - If there is any inconsistency between two legislations, the later law, even if general in nature, would override an earlier special law. (Para 18) Jurisdiction - An ouster of jurisdiction cannot be lightly assumed unless express words are used or such a consequence follows by necessary implication. (Para 16).

Similarly, in the matter of Civil appeal no 923 of 2017 arising from a judgment and order dated 26 May 2016 of the NCDRC which was rendered in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The issue is whether u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in deciding a dispute between a telecom company and a consumer.  The appellant raised an objection to the maintainability of the complaint based on a judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 481. The District Forum dismissed the application and directed that a written statement must be submitted by the appellant on all issues including on the issue of jurisdiction. It was observed that the appellant, a private service provider is not a ‘telegraph authority’ for the purposes of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphic Act 1885 [“Act of 1885”]; however, the issue of jurisdiction could not be determined without the filing of a written statement. In this context, it was observed that the order of the District Forum was questioned before the SCDRC, Gujarat. The SCDRC held by an order dated 30 November 2015 that the issue of jurisdiction could be raised as a preliminary issue. On merits, the SCDRC relied on the letter of the Department of Telecommunication dated 24 January 2014 where it was stated that the judgment in M Krishnan (supra) on Section 7B of the Act of 1885 would not be applicable to a private service provider since it is not a ‘Telegraph Authority”. For this purpose, reliance was also placed on Bharthi Hexacom Ltd. v. Komal Prakash [Misc Application No. 204/2014 in Revision Petition Application No. 12]. The State Forum observed that: “[...] under the above mentioned circumstances for a dispute under Sect. 7(B) between Private Service Provider and Consumer the authority cannot take decision because, for Private Service provider any arrangement is not made in the above act regarding Telegraphic Authority are not given to the Service Provider. Hence, the Learned Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction to hear, decide and dispose of the dispute between the Private service Provider and consumer.” The matter was thereafter carried in revision to the NCDRC. The NCDRC by its judgment dated 26 May 2016 affirmed the view of the SCDRC Mr Aditya Narain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Sec 7B of the Act of 1885 provides a statutory remedy of arbitration. Counsel submitted that in view of the statutory remedy, which is a remedy under a special statute, the jurisdiction of the consumer forum is ousted. In this context, besides relying on the provisions of Section 7B, counsel adverted to the definitions of the expression ‘telecom officer’ in Section 3(2) and of ‘telegraph authority’ in Section 3(6). The principal issue which arises for determination is whether the existence of a remedy under Section 7B of the Act of 1885 ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 [“Act of 1986”]. The submission which was urged on behalf of the appellant was that the specific incorporation of telegraph services in the Act of 2019 is an indicator that it was only as a result of the new legislation that telecom services were brought within the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. This submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the specification of services in Section 2(s) of the earlier Act of 1986 was illustrative. This is apparent from the use of the expression ‘includes but not limited to’. The specification of services in Section 2(s) of the erstwhile Act was therefore not intended to be an exhaustive enumeration of the services which are comprehended within the definition. On the contrary, by adopting language which provides that the expression ‘service’ would mean service of any description which is made available to potential users, Parliament indicated in unambiguous terms that all services would fall within the ambit of the definition”

“Sec.(3) – Act not in derogation of any other law- “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

For the above reasons, we affirm that the judgment of the NCDRC which came to the conclusion that the District Forum, has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. So the various older Judgements relied upon by the OPs in the matter of Raag Rang Vs GM, Delhi Telephones, 1997 5 SCC 345 AIR 1997 SC 2653, And  Senior Post Master, GPO Vs Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat , 1995 2 CPJ 230 (NC)  where the Indian Post Act prevails over CP Act - these Judgements claiming Arbitration to be as the sole route of Adjudication is over ridden. Relying upon the authority as mentioned above, it is quite apparent that this Ld. District Commission is competent enough to entertain the dispute between individual telecom consumer and service providers.

So this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complaint is maintainable before this commission.

Point no (2) :

In order to substantiate the case, the complainant has filed all documents and exhibits, his evidences through affidavits and BNA . On the other hand, the telecom company contested the case through evidences by affirming affidavits, BNA etc. The OPs cited that the complainant neglected to make payments of the bills from January, 2019 till date by drawing a statement showing the running outstanding balance from 06.12.2019 to 06.01.2019, which has not been contested by the other side about it’s factum. Per contra, the OPs claimed that in various occasions the complainant failed to make payment of those outstanding bills for which connection had to be disconnected due to non-payment by the complainant and by the time there were some delayed payments for no part of the OPs and whatever were charged towards delayed payments was as per usual procedure and as such OPs prayed dismissal of complaint. It is observed from the said statements of bill amount versus payments realised that were filed by the OPs, which are not in dispute by the complainant about it’s material content, has filed the details in tabular form at the running page no. 6 of the BNA from the OPs, depicting that there had been always a gap between the billed amount and repayment thereof, for which only the complainant was deficient. Neither any proof of document was exhibited by the complainant regarding surrender of the said mobile connection to stop the billing by the service provider.

Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the present complaint petition alongwith documentary evidences, it is to sum up that the cases of both the sides are appreciated and a decision could be arrived as just and proper that deficiency in service on the part of the OPs could not be adequately established.

Point no. (3) :

In the result, the complaint stands not allowed on contest.

Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.