State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prem Kumar Son Of Khazan Chand vs Max Communication, on 21 January, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 644 of 2010
Date of institution : 20.4.2010
Date of Decision : 21.1.2013
Prem Kumar son of Khazan Chand, r/o Street No. 3, Dogar Basti, Faridkot.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Max Communication, SCO No. 3, Baba Faridkot Market Opposite
Kotwali, Faridkot through its Proprietor.
2. Bharti Airtel Ltd., C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Mohali through its
Circle Incharge.
3. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Aravali Cresent, Nelson Mendela Road, Vasant Kunj,
Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 through its MD.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 16.12.2009 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Faridkot.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Atul Goyal, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Ex.-parte
For respondents No.2&3 : None.
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant-Prem Kumar(hereinafter called 'the appellant') for the modification of the order dated 16.12.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') for enhancement of the compensation which was awarded by the District Forum.
2. Gist of the case are that the appellant had purchased post paid mobile connection No. 98786-78610 from the respondents on 11.3.2008 by paying Rs. 3050/- out of which Rs. 2500/- paid as charges for special number. Thereafter the appellant converted his number into pre- First Appeal No. 644 of 2010 2 paid number as per the scheme/plan of the respondents by paying charges of Rs. 295/- for lifetime validity. Rs. 555/- were also charged by the respondents as security charges on 7.8.2008. It was averred that in the Month of March, 2009 SIM of the mobile connection was blocked. On approaching, respondent No. 1 provided duplicate SIM of same number but the same was again disconnected after 10 days of its restoration. On approaching no satisfactory reply was given by the respondents and thereafter he had come to know that this number was issued to someone else. The appellant had purchased the said number with lifetime validity by paying special consideration and disconnection of the same as well as issuance of the same to anyone else amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents. Complaint was filed with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to issue the same number to the appellant and also pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment.
3. Respondents were proceeded against ex-parte before the District Forum.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and going through the record, accepted the complaint and the respondents were directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant which includes compensation and costs within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
5. Hence, the appeal was filed by the appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 titled as "General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr.", 2009 8 SCC 481 held that any dispute between the subscriber and the Telegraph First Appeal No. 644 of 2010 3 Authority can be resolved by taking recourse to Arbitration proceeding only. The same was also followed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1703 of 2010 "Prakash Verma Vs. IDEA Cellular Ltd. & others" decided on 10.2.2010 and it was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all the subordinate Courts and there is no scope for interference and the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
7. So as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the Hon'ble National Commission, the complaint of the appellant was not maintainable and the order of the District Forum is against the settled law laid down by the superior Courts.
8. Against the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the District Forum, no appeal was filed by the appellant, as such, the said order had attained the finality.
9. There is no ground for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum, as such, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 8.1.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
January 21, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member