D.o.F:25/5/2010
D.o.O:10/2/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO. 124/10
Dated this, the 10th day of February 2011
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Joseph M George,
Madathil Parambil,Kunnumkai,
West Eleri Po, Bheemanadi,Kasaragod. : Complainant
(in person)
Manager,
Idea Telecommunication Ltd,
Circle Office, Mercy estate,2nd floor, : Opposite party
Ravipuram,Cochin-682015
(Adv.T.V.rajendran,Hosdurg)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
Bereft of unnecessaries the case of the complainant Joseph George is that his prepaid Idea mobile connection that he availed on 17/2/2010 from the franchisee of opposite party namely Bismi Communications, Kunnamkai by furnishing ID proof and photo has been disconnected on 4/3/2010 without assigning any reason. Hence this complaint claiming compensation.
2. According to opposite party the complaint is not maintainable in view of the Sec.7 B of the Telegraph Act. On merits their case is that complainant has not submitted any ID proof and photo that has been made mandatory by the Telecom Department keeping into account the threat poised by various terrorists to the national security. Hence his connection was barred. Therefore there is no deficiency in their service.
3. Complainant examined as PW1 and the person who is running the firm Bismi Communication has been examined as PW2. Ext.A1 marked. On the side of opposite party DW1 is examined as Ext.B1 marked. Both sides heard. Documents perused.
4. The points arise for consideration are:
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of Sec.7B of the Telegraph act/
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
- What order as to relief and cost.
5. Point no.1: The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of General Manager vs. M.Krishnan & Anr. In Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 the complaint is not maintainable and the matter ought to have been referred to an Arbitrator U/S 7B of the Telegraph Act since the dispute here in is a dispute between Telegraph Authority and its subscriber.
But we are unable to accept this contention for the reasons that opposite party is not a Telegraph Authority and further only the Central Govt.alone can appoint arbitrator as per Sec.7B of the Telegraph Act.
There is an association of Unified Telecom Service providers called Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India (In short AUSPI). The said Association submitted aletter to the Department of Telecommunications seeking some clarifications in the light of the judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom V. M. Krishnan and Another. The following queries/clarifications were sought.
“ a. Are private and public service providers are telecom authorities and
provisions of Sec.7-B applicable on them ? and
b. Can private and public service providers as telecom authority appoint
arbitrators for arbitration of disputes?”
10. The department of Telecommunications vide its letter No.07-32/2007-PHP (Pt) dated 19th Oct 2009 has specifically clarified that neither the private nor the public service providers falls in the defenition of Telegraph Authority. For the sake of convenience, letter dated 19-10-2009 issued by the Ministry of Telecommunications is reproduced as under:-
No.07-32/2007-PHP (Pt)
Government of India
Ministry of Communications &IT Department of
Tele Communications, 1205, Sanchar
Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
Dated 19th Oct 2009.
To
Sh. S.C. Khanna,
Secretary General AUSPI,
B-601, Gauri Sadan, 5, Halley Road,
New Delhi.110001.
Subject:- Supreme Court Judgment regarding Telecom Consumers cannot
Approach Consumer Forums for billing disputes.
Sir,
Kindly refer to your letter No. AUSPI/13/2009/141 dated 1-10-2009 seeking clarification on the subject cited above. The clarification is given below.
| Point | Clarification |
(a) | Are Private and Public Service Providers are Telecom authorities and provisions of Sec 7-B applicable on them? | No. Private and Public Service Providers are not Telegraph Authority. Further only Central Government can appoint arbitrator under Sec.7 B of Indian Telegraph Act. |
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Misha Bajpal)
Assistant Director General (PHP) Tele 23036027
The reference of the above said queries as well as the reply of the Department of Telecommunications also find mentioned in the website of the AUSPI (www.auspi.in)
From the above it is crystal clear that Private Telecom Service providers like Idea,Vodafone, Airtel, Aircel, Videocon MTS TATA DOCOMO and Public Service Providers like BSNL MTNL VSNL are not telegraph Authorities and hence Sec.7-B of the Telegraph Act is not applicable to them and therefore there is no necessity of referring the disputes to arbitrators as contemplated under the Telegraph Act. The Consumer FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act can entertain and settle the consumer disputes including that of BSNL, MTNL and VSNL being the public telecom service providers.
5. Point No.2: The case of complainant is that he has submitted the copy of his driving license and a photograph for availing the mobile connection. But in the version opposite party had taken a defense that complainant had not submitted Identity proof and address proof which is a mandatory requirement. But subsequently they admitted that they have received a scanned copy of the identity proof and photograph of the complainant from their franchisee M/s Bismi Communications. Since the scanned copy of the identity proof is not very distinct they refused it and therefore for want of photograph and address proof the connection provided to the complainant has been disconnected. According to opposite party they have intimated this fact both to their franchisee as well as to complainant.
6. But no evidence whatsoever is produced by opposite party to prove that they have intimated the complainant about the non-submission of the ID proof. Further, subsequently they admitted that they have received an illegible copy of the ID proof and photograph from their franchisee.
So, even if they have not received the legible copy of the ID proof and photo of the complainant from their franchisee they could have asked their franchisee to sent a legible copy of the identity proof for which complainant is no way liable or responsible and the opposite party is liable as master of their franchisee.
Hence we are of the view that opposite party has committed deficiency in their service rendered to complainant by disconnecting the mobile connection for no fault of complainant.
7. point No.3 : Relief and Costs;
The complainant obtained connection on 17/2/2010 and it was disconnected on 4/3/2010. He admitted that there are other mobile connection with him. Hence it can not be hold that the entire business of the complainant got struck due to the disconnection of his new Idea mobile connection. Therefore he is only entitled for a reasonable compensation and costs which we fix as 5000/- and 2000/- respectively.
In the result complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay 5000/- as compensation and 2000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Exts:
A1- copy of Driving license
B1-copy of customer application form
PW1-Joseph.M.George-complainant
PW2- Shamsad.M- witness of PW1
DW1- Rakesh-Witness of OP
MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
