Suresh T.B.
6, 1st Floor, Kalyan Complex,
Lakshmana Mudaliar Street,
Commercial Street, 2nd Cross,
Bangalore – 560 001.
…. Complainant.
V/s
The Chairman,
M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
Circle Office, No.55,
Divyasree Towers,
Bannerghatta Main Road,
Bangalore – 560 029.
…. Opposite Party
-: ORDER:-
This complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs.75,000/- from the Opposite Party on the following grounds:-
2. The complainant is a subscriber of Airtel Post Paid Mobile service with Mobile No.9845016602 for a number of years. On receipt of the bill, the payment used to be made within the due date and no late payment has been made till the date nor payment is refused at any point of time. The bill for the period from 26/04/2007 to 25/05/2007 was not received by the complainant. It is mandatory for any service provider to issue the bill for the concerned period. The Opposite Party not only issued the bill even after repeated requests but also refused the same as per the letter dated 27/07/2007. A request for copy of the bill for the said period was made on 07/06/2007, but the same was not provided. Again, on 11/06/2007 request for the bill was made and complaint No.12875325 was recorded. The Opposite Party sent message on 14/06/2007 informing that they will get back to the complainant on 22/06/2007, but the reply is still awaited.
There was no response to the letter dated:05/07/2007 sent to the Nodal Officer of the Opposite Party. By the letter dated 01/08/2007 the Customer Service of the Opposite Party informed that they would not be able to send the bill. A complaint was also made to the Chairman of the Opposite Party at New Delhi. The service to the Mobile of the complainant was disrupted on 30/07/2007 and again from 05/08/2007, the service has been barred. The complainant sent legal notice dated 16/08/2007 and also lodged a complaint with TRAI on 29/08/2007. The said Authority sent the letter dated 27/09/2007 regarding the procedure to be followed. The disruption of the Mobile service has caused immense hardship, mental and physical agony to the complainant apart from business and financial loss. Hence, the complaint.
3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-
The complainant was a subscriber of the Opposite Party in respect of the Mobile Number referred to in the complaint and he was regularly issued the bills as per the usage. It was the policy adopted by the Opposite Party till 2008 that whenever the Customer is having a credit balance in his account more than the bill amount of a particular period, the bill amount would be deducted from the available credit balance and the Customer would not be issued the bill for the particular month.
However, the Customer would be intimated about the bill amount by sending SMS and the subscriber can also get the details of the bill through Internet by surfing the Website of the Opposite Party. Therefore, the non issuance of the bill will not put the subscriber to any hardship. When the complainant contacted the Customer Care Cell of the Opposite Party, he was specifically apprised of the procedure adopted. The complainant failed to pay the subsequent bills and therefore the Opposite Party was compelled to deactivate the service. Keeping quiet for two years, the complainant has come up with the present complaint.
Therefore, the complainant was not a subscriber of the Opposite Party as on the date of the complaint. The complaint is also barred by time. Disconnection of the Mobile facility was not due to non-payment of the bill dated 28/05/2007, but for non-payment of the subsequent bills which were issued to the complainant. There was no reason for the complainant not to pay the subsequent bills. In view of the law laid-down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004, the present complaint is not maintainable By the Judgment in the said case, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums is excluded in view of the remedy provided U/s 7-B of the Indian Telegraphic Act. On these grounds, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In support of the respective contentions both parties have filed affidavits. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party has filed written arguments. We have heard the arguments of the complainant.
5. The points for consideration are:-
1. Whether in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004, the present complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
3. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
6. Our findings are:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point Nos. 2 & 3: Does not survive
-:REASONS:-
Point No.1:-
7. Among other grounds, the Opposite Party has specifically contended in the version that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004, the complaint itself is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Along with the version, the Opposite Party has also produced the copy of the judgment downloaded from the Website of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the Judgment in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding the disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Referring to Section 7-B of the Telegraph act regarding arbitration of disputes, it is held that in case of any disputes concerning any telegraph line appliance or apparatus between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided, shall be determined by arbitration.
The present dispute is also with regard to the telephone facility availed by the complainant from the Opposite Party. Of-course, the complainant had availed Mobile connection service from the Opposite Party which is also a Telephone service. In that case, the remedy available to the complainant with regard to the dispute raised by him is by way of arbitration as provided in Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in respect of such disputes the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums is barred by implication. As such, the complainant is not entitled to maintain the present complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in the Negative holding that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of law laid-down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004.
Point Nos.(2) & (3):-
8. In view of our finding on point No.1 these two points will not survive for consideration. If any finding is given under these points, it will amount to a decision given by the Authority, having no jurisdiction.
9. In view of our finding on point No.1, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. In the result, we pass the following:-
-:ORDER:-
1. The complaint is DISMISSED as not maintainable.
2. The complainant is at liberty to seek remedy under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. There is no order as to costs.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Submit Complaint..
