State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Teleservices Ltd Coimbatore 641 ... vs S. Ramadoss G.K. Square, Kurichi ... on 22 October, 2010
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER I Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.216/2010 [Against order in C.C.279/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore] DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 The Manager, | Appellant / OP Tata Teleservices Ltd., | 1089, Avanashi Road, Lakhsmi Plaza, | Coimbatore 641 037. | Vs. S. Ramadoss, | Respondent/O.P. S/o. of Shanmugam, | Door No.4/5-F, Gokulam, | G.K. Square, Kurichi, | Coimbatore 641 024. | The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to adjust the deposit of Rs.1,000/- against the one time charges and revise the bill accordingly, to adjust Rs.300/- in the future landline bills, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the humiliation, mental agony and loss of reputation, to pay Rs.1,000/- for the expenses incurred towards the legal notice etc., and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the complaint. 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.25.07.2008 in C.C.279/2007. This appeal coming before us for Enquiry on 15.10.2010, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: Counsel for the Appellant / OP : Mr.V.V.Giridhar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant : Mr.Vincent Raj, Advocate. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1.
The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The complainant availed telephone connection, provided by the opposite party, not only for landline, but also for mobile service, under various scheme. The opposite party when claimed money for the service rendered, by issuing bills, there was a dispute not only in the rental, but also the actual consumption. Thus, leveling deficiency, as if, there was excess billing, recommending for the disconnection, suspending the telephone connection for certain period, would amount to deficiency in service, a case came to be filed, before the District Forum, seeking directions to adjust the deposit of Rs.1,000/- against the one time charges and revise the bill accordingly, to adjust a sum of Rs.300/- in the future landline bills, as well for compensation, based upon the above said deficiency.
3. The opposite party on various grounds, explaining that there was no deficiency, justifying the correctness of the bill, opposed the claim.
4. The District Forum based upon the materials, came to the conclusion, that there was deficiency on the part of the opposite party, as if, amount were not properly adjusted or accounted. In this view, a direction has been issued to issue a revised bill, as well for the payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation as per the order dated 25.07.2008, which is under challenge.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the change of law as ruled by the Supreme Court, which is followed by this Commission also repeatedly, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and on this ground alone, the appeal deserves acceptance, whereas it is the case of the complainant, that the ruling rendered by the Supreme Court will not be applicable to the present case.
6. The pleadings, undoubtedly make it clear that there was dispute regarding the bill, issued by the opposite party for the telephone connection, whether landline or mobile provided and that is why, in one of the paragraph, it is said that there was excess billing, for non-payment, recommending disconnection. It is also said that when coming to the mobile service, an one time payment of Rs.999/- was claimed, but the mobile was not activated or something like that.
Thus, the dispute or deficiency in service, attributed in this case, related to, not only the bills, but also regarding telephone connection.
7. When this kind of dispute was raised, when the matter had been to the Hon'ble Apex Court in "General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan and another", it is held, that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction and if at all, the affected party, should approach the Arbitrator to be appointed under Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, under which alone, the opposite party should have obtained license, in order to provide service to the public. This Commission following the said rulings has already concluded in many cases, that too, deciding this kind of dispute, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. We do not find any reason, now to change the view since the ruling rendered by the Supreme Court is, even now ruling the field.
Following the above decision, we concluding, that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction and the appeal is to be allowed since, the Consumer Forum has decided the case without jurisdiction. If the complainant is aggrieved, directed to workout his remedy before proper Forum as indicated in Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum in OP No.279/2007, dt.25.07.2008 is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective cost throughout.
9. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant/opposite party, duly discharged.
S. SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Ns/mtj/Telephones