State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Chief Operating Officer,Formerly ... vs Suresh Jain,M/S.Raaghaa B.S.Jain ... on 28 January, 2011
BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH II) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Member Judicial Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., Member F.A.No.127/2008 [Against order in COP.No.192/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore] FRIDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY 2011. 1. Chief Operating Officer, Formerly BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd., Now Hutchison Essar, Now Known as Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd., No.1046, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 638 018. 2. Customer Service Manager,( Coimbatore), Formerly BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd., Now Hutchison Essar, Now Known as Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd., No.1046, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 638 018. .. Appellants/ Opposite parties Vs. Suresh Jain, M/s.Raaghaa B.S.Jain Music Shop, 739-A, Nilgiris Departmental Store, Coimbatore 641 018. .. Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties and praying to refund a sum of Rs.40/- and Rs.30, which has been wrongly deducted from the complainants account to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/-towards cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore, dt.20.09.2007 in COP.No.192/2005. After hearing the arguments of both parties, finally on 24.1.2011, this Commission made the following order : Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite parties : M/s.Shivakumar & Suresh, Advocates. Respondent/Complainant : Called absent. ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL
1. The appellants are opposite parties before the District Forum. The complainant filed a complaint for ordering to pay Rs.4,00,000/- for deficiency of service towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost.
2. On the basis of enquiry against the opposite party, the District Forum allowed the complaint and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.1,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party filed this appeal against the complainant. In these circumstances, this appeal was taken up for hearing and in the appeal, and in the absence of the respondent/complainant this appeal is being disposed on merits after hearing the appellant and upon perusal of the records.
4. Whether this appeal is liable to be allowed ?
5. Point : When this appeal came before this Commission it is brought to the notice of this Commission that in earlier cases relating to the matter of telephone services providers like Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hutchison Essar South Ltd., and other Touch Tel, Bharti Telenet, Bharti Cellular Ltd., cases against which complaints have been filed for deficiency of service on the grounds either they have collected excess amount or claiming rental rebate or to restore the telephone connection or claiming refund of amount paid or to withdraw the bill, or to restore the mobile connection or to correct the bill for real consumption or to reactivate the mobile connection or to set right the wrong bills or to cancel the telephone bills or for refund of the deposits etc., including claiming compensation attributing deficiency in service as per the averments made in the respective complaints before the respective Fora, and against the orders of those District Forum appeals have been filed before this Commission and in view of the Honble Supreme Court judgment in, General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan & Another this Commission disposed those appeals as by holding that the complaints are not maintainable as jurisdiction barred. In the above said ruling it was held that in view of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act there is an implied bar, to invoke the Consumer Protection Act, herein after called Act, thereby, ousting the jurisdiction of the Act, as far as the service provided by the BSNL, and other service providers under the Telegraph Act. This Commission also on the basis of above said ruling in FA No.460/2004 dated 30.11.2009 and in other similar cases disposed as those cases not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and in subsequent appeals also the same stand was taken by this Commission. Accordingly in this case also this appeal to be allowed under the same purview and in view of the Honble Supreme Court judgement in, General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan and Another in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 before the Honble Supreme Court of India and as under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act special remedy is provided regarding the disputes in respect of telephone bills and thereby the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. In view of the above citation this appeal deserves to be allowed.
7) In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in COP.No.192/2005, dated 20.09.2007 not on the grounds of District Forum order but in view of the bar on jurisdiction and the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
8) The Registry is directed to hand over the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant, duly discharged.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka//BPL Mobile..