TATA TELE SERVICES LTD Vs. PRIYA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the Appellant -OP being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum, Unit -1, Kolkala, on 19.01.2011, wherein the learned Forum below allowing the complaint exparte against the OP with cost has directed the OP to stop sending messages on 'Quaram Pack' immediately, if not already stopped and to restrain himself from sending such message to any person without his/ her,consent. The OP was further directed to pay compensation of L 10,000/ - to the Complainant for her harassment and mental agony along with litigation cost of L 1,000/ -. The learned Forum below has directed to pay the entire decrectal amount of L 11,120/ - within 45 days front the date of communication of the judgment and order, failing which the said amount would carry interest 9% p.a. till realization. The OP was further directed to pay a sum of L 120/ - only adjusted from his prepaid account as a charge of SMS on 'Quaram Pack' within the period specified above.

(2.) THE brief fact of the ease of the Complainant is that she purchased a mobile set with a pack on payment of consideration money of L 1650/ - from the OR The mobile connection was under prepaid scheme connected with SIM card. The OP continued to send SMS under pack named 'Quaram Pack' and a sum of L 30/ - per month was charged for transmission of SMS. The complaint did never intend to have 'Quaram Pack' through her set. Being a member of the Hindu Community the complainant protested against transmission such pack to her set and the OP assured to discontinue transmitting and the amount so far charged would be refunded. But the commitment of the OP failed.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the abovementioned judgment and order the Appellant -OP has preferred the present appeal before this Commission contending that the learned Forum below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested on it by law as well as the actual facts and circumstances of the present complaint. The learned Forum below has committed gross error in passing the impugned order exparte whereas admittedly no show cause has been served upon the Appellant, which is a clear violation of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been mentioned in the grounds of memorandum of appeal that the learned Forum below should have considered that the sales/ promotional centre of the Appellant is a 35, Park Street, Kolkata -700 016 is no way connected or related with the disputes of the Complainant. The Complainant for the purpose of some illegal gain intentionally did not implead the Regional Office and local office of the Appellant which is situated at 15th floor, DN -52, Sector -V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata -700 091. It has been further stated by the Appellant that the Forum should have considered that the Appellant has no local office nor Regional Office and/or Customer Office at Park Street; neither it is the local office of the Appellant nor the Regional Office as stated by the Complainant, in the petition of complaint. The office at Park Street is a sale and promotional center of the Appellant where only marketing of TATA In - dicom mobile sets, other sets and connections have been provided to the subscribers. The said office cannot attend any complaint regarding any deficiency in service suffered by the customer. Complaint relating to any deficiency in service or any sort of sufferings faced by the subscribers will be communicated to the Customer Care Centre of the Appellant and/or directly to the Appellant at their Local and Regional Office at Salt Lake office, but in the instant case the Respondent purchased the mobile set from Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata - 700 014, who also arranged connection of the Appellant Company to the Respondent but the Respondent did not implead the said shop as a party to the instant proceeding. It has been further submitted by the Appellant that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble National Commission the nature of the present case which is related to the complaint of telephone -telecom dispute is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum or any other Courts and the grievance can be redressed only by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.