By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

Complainant has filed this petition against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service. Complainant had a post paid Airtel connection No.9895599118. As the complainant had another Mobile connection he did not use the Airtel connection. When he received a legal notice from opposite party-1 to remit an amount of Rs.1302/, the complainant had remitted the amount and returned back the sim card to opposite party. Opposite party did not furnish any receipt for the amount paid. The complainant again received a bill from opposite party-2 for the former connection for an amount of Rs.3424.77. The complainant approached the customer care centre of opposite party but did not get any response from the opposite party. From the bill served by the opposite party it is understood that several calls including international have been made from his old sim card. The Act of the opposite party has caused many hardships and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this petition seeking relief.

Opposite paprty-1 refused to accept the notice sent from the Forum. Complainant filed I.A.22/2009 to implead Barathi Airtel Ltd. as opposite party-2 in the party array. Opposite party-2 filed an I.A. petition numbered as 247/09 to consider the issue of maintainability of the complaint before taking evidence. Complainant had filed counter to the I.A.247/09. Forum heard both parties in detail. In the I.A. petition opposite party had submitted that the opposite party in the present complaint is a Telegraph Authority as per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act. Opposite party submits that by virtue of the judgment dated 1-9-09 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 it has been held that Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction on disputes relating bills in the light of the special remedy provided in Section-7B of Indian Telegraph Act. Complainant had filed counter to the I.A. petition stating that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the dictum 2009 (3) KLT 991 (SC) was with regard to the question of privileges available to the Central Government under Part-2 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Complainant also submitted that the opposite party herein is only licensee and hence they are not entitled to claim the privileges and power of the Central Government. Opposite party-2 has argued that they come under the term Telegraph Authority as per the provisions of Telegraph Act. Provisio the Sub Section-1 of Section-4 enables the Central Government to grand license for establishment, maintenance or working of Telegraph including telecommunications. Opposite party-2 has argued that as per the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act they are also included under the title Telegraph Authority. As the Supreme Court has laid down the dictum and held that the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction on disputes relating to Telephone Services and telephone bills the Forum has come to the conclusion that this complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. In the light of the Supreme Court verdict the petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Pronounced in the open court this the 19^{th day of May 2010.}