DATE OF FILING : 10.5.2013
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2013
Present :
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT. LIZAMMA ABRAHAM. K. MEMBER
CC NO.153/2013
Between
Complainant : Shinto S/o Baby,
Madappallil House,
Kamakshi, Thankamany,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Saji Augustine)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. IDEA Cellular Limited,
Corporate Office, 501/502,
Windsor, CST Road, Kalina,
Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 098.
(By Adv: George V. Thomas)
2. Naveen Ambattu,
Proprietor - MY IDIEA
Kattappana, Kattappana P.O.,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Complainant availed a cell phone sim card connection from the 2nd opposite party who is the agent of the 1st opposite party on 11.2.2013 with No.9562870000 and paid an amount of Rs.250/- for the same. The opposite party assured that it would be activated after 4 days. But unfortunately, the number was not at all activated, so he enquired about the same to the 2nd opposite party, but the 2nd opposite party avoided the complainant with filmy reasons. Moreover, 3 times the complainant approached the opposite party for the same. Hence the petition is filed for getting activation of the sim card with the actual No.9562870000 and also for compensation.
2. The opposite party appeared and filed written version stating that the alleged complaint is related to the use of telephone service provided by Idea Cellular Ltd, who is providing telecommunication service under license from Government of India and coming under the purview of Indian Telegraph Act. Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to the telephone are subject to Telegraph rules. As per Section 7B of the Telegraph 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. Moreover, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the number stated in the complaint is already provided to another person and so the opposite party cannot provide to the complainant. That matter was also informed to the complainant. The opposite party is ready to activate any other number which the complainant prefers with the opposite party.
So we think that the opposite party is ready to provide a number other than this number, since it is already provided to another person. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2009KHC 4906, in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another, the complainant can approach the arbitrator constituted.
Hence this petition is not at all maintainable before this Forum and the petition is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of June, 2013
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
SMT. LIZAMMA ABRAHAM. K. (MEMBER)
APPENDIX : Nil.
