State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K. Sivaraman No.20, 1St Main Road Anna ... vs 1. The General Manager Airtel Customer ... on 28 January, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice M.THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru J. JAYARAM, M.A.,M.L., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Thiru S. SAMBANDAM MEMBER II F.A.NO.76/2009 (Against order in CC.NO.255/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North) DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY 2011 1.
The General Manager Airtel Customer Service, Bharat Mobinet Ltd., Paramount Plaza 22/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road Nungambakkam, Chennai -600 034
2. Bharat Mobinet Ltd., (A Bharat Enterprises) Rep. by its Director Qutab Ambience (at Qutab Minar) M/s. M.B. Gopalan Mehrauli Road, Counsel for New Delhi- 110 030 Appellants/ Opposite parties Vs. K. Sivaraman No.20, 1st Main Road Anna Nagar, Pammal (called absent) Chennai 600 075 Respondent/ Complainant The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties for various reliefs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.11.2008 in OP.No.255/2005.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 24.1.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The respondent/ complainant, who had availed the service of the opposite parties, by getting a mobile No.98400 20769, was paying the bills promptly, but the service was disconnected on 24.1.2003. The enquiry, why the service was disconnected, revealed that bill for the month of November, not paid, though the complainant has paid the bill on 30.11.2002 itself. Due to the gross negligence of disconnecting the service, the opposite parties have caused great hardship, resulting mental agony, which was not rectified, even after the issuance of lawyers notice, thus complaining, a consumer complaint came to be filed, for the refund of the amount paid, seeking compensation of Rs.75000/-, conveyance charges Rs.15000/-
etc.
3. The opposite parties, admitting the service provided by them, opposed the claim, contending that for the non-payment of the bill amount in time alone, service was deactivated, the complainant is not a consumer, and they had no knowledge about the disconnection of the service, on 24.1.2003,since they have not disconnected service connection, that for the non-payment of the bill amount, the mobile connection was deactivated on 19.5.2003, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum, accepting the case of the complainant, that the opposite parties have deactivated or disconnected the service connection, without giving detailed explanation, came to the conclusion that the opposite party had committed deficiency, thereby issued directions as per order dt.12.11.2008, which is under challenge.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant, urged before us that in view of the latest declaration of law, by the Apex Court, the complaint itself is not maintainable, and the consumer forum has no jurisdiction, basing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in General Manager Vs. Krishnan, which is followed consistently by this commission also, in number of cases, concluding when there is a dispute regarding bill amount, under the Special Act, the parties have to work out their remedy, before the authorities concerned, and the consumer forum has no jurisdiction, which principle is applicable to the present case also. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, it should be construed, that the order of District Forum, is not sustainable, for want of jurisdiction, and therefore it is unnecessary for us go into detail, about the non-payment or disconnection or dispute of the bill.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.255/2005 dt.12.11.2008, and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost throughout.
Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant, duly discharged.
S.SAMBANDAM J. JAYARAM M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIALMEMBER I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/Bench-1/Tel;ephones