State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Officer, vs T.A. Ayoob, on 30 April, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/11/807 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/06/2011 in Case No. CC/10/43 of District Palakkad) 1. The Regional Officer,Idea Mobile Communication Ltd 4 th Floor,Mercy Estate Ravipuram,M G Road,Kochi Ernakulam Kerala ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. T A Ayoob City Cable Vision,City Plaza,R S Road,Palakkad Palakkad Kerala ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: Smt.A.RADHA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
swKERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 807/11
JUDGMENT DATED : 30.04.2012
PRESENT:
SHRI . K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
1. Regional Officer,
Idea Mobile Communication Ltd,
Regional Officer, 4th Floor,
Mercy Estate, Ravipuram,
M.G. Road, Kochi - 682 015.
: APPELLANTS
2. The Proprietor,
M/s. Imperial Communications,
City Plaza, R.S. Road,
Near Head Post Office, Ottapalam,
Palakkad.
(By Adv. T.L. Sreeram)
Vs
T.A. Ayoob, S/o. T.A. Abdul Rahiman,
City Cable Vision, City Plaza,
R.S. Road, Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad. : RESPONDENT
(By Adv. Jagadish Kumar, amicus curiae)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Challenging the sustainability of the order passed by the CDRF Palakkad in CC NO. 43/10 the opposite parties came up in this appeal. While allowing the complaint the Forum below directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings within 1 month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount till realization.
2. The complainant was a customer of the opposite parties and was running a cable television network. While so, the complainant on 1.4.09 registered a request for availing roaming services which was not activated in time causing financial loss in the business of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed for compensation for financial loss and mental agony.
3. The opposite party in their version contended that the complaint is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed at the threshold. It is also contended that the Idea customers have national roaming facilities automatically activated in the SIM. The connection was deactivated due to default in payment of the bills for the months of February 2009 and March 2009 and the number was reactivated immediately on payment of the bill on the next day itself.
4. The evidence consisted of oral testimony of the complainant as PW1and opposite party as DW1. The Exts. A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite party were marked.
5. The Forum below arrived at a conclusion that the Private Telephone service providers like opposite parties are licensees and they cannot come under the definition of Telegraph Authority. In this case the dispute is between the Telegraph Authority and the complainant and as such it is between the Private Mobile Services providing agencies and complainant which comes under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Further the opposite parties failed to render roaming service to the mobile telephone of the complainant and the act of the opposite parties caused financial loss in his business and mental agony.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision rendered in General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another (2009 (8) SCC 481) wherein the controversy with regard to the billing of the telephone of the respondent, is ousted from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. In view of the Provision of Sec. 7B of the Telegraph Act where there is a special remedy provided under the Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.
7. The short question that is to be decided by us is on the maintainability of the complaint. On going through the records we find that the Forum below took a wrong interpretation regarding the Telegraph Authority and came to the conclusion that the Private Telephone Service providers like the opposite parties are licensees and they cannot come under the definition of Telegraph authority. In this case, the Forum came to the conclusion that the dispute is not between the Telegraph Authority and the complainant and as such it is between the Private Mobile Service providing services and the complainant and thus comes under CP Act.
8. We have to point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear in the case of General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan that the expression 'telegraph' as defined in the Indian Telegraph Act includes all kinds of Tele Communication Services. Therefore any dispute between the service provider and Consumer can be decided only under that Act and jurisdiction of Consumer Foras is barred.
9. In view of the expression of Telegraph defined in Telegraph Act which includes all kinds of Telecommunication Services the complaint filed before the Forum below is not maintainable.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Lower Forum with the LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
DA
[ Smt.A.RADHA] PRESIDING MEMBER