F.A. No. 28 of 2009 Decided on 8.1.2010.

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Dharamshala Telecom District Dharamshala,

Distict Kangra through its General Manager.

2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Through its Accounts Officer (TR)

O/o General Manager Telecom District

Dharamshala.

3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Though its Assistant Engineer (Telecom)

Dehra District, Kangra (H.P).

....Appellants.

Versus
1. Smt. Brij Kumari Wd/o late Sh. Parkash Chand Mehra

alias P.C.Mehra.

2. Sh. Amrat Mehra S/o Late Sh. Parkash Chand Mehra

Both R/o DAV Public School Road,

Dehra Gopipur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P

..Respondents.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.

Whether approved for reporting ?
For the appellants. Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate

for the appellants.

For the respondents. Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate

vice counsel for the respondents.
ORDER

Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President.


1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.9.2008, passed by District Forum, Kangra, camp at Dehra. By means of impugned order Consumer Complaint No. 356/2006 has been allowed in the following terms :-

“ the complaint is partly allowed and we order the opposite parties jointly and severally to modify the telephone bill dated 7.3.2006 worth Rs. 2141/- for the period 1.1.2006 to 28.2.2006; telephone bill dated 7.5.2006 for the period 1.3.2006 to 30.4.2006 to the tune of Rs. 1940/- and telephone bill dated 7.7.2006 for the period 1.5.2006 to 30.6.2006 to the tune of Rs. 7688/-. The charges will be as per highest telephone bill issued during the six bio-monthly period (one year) immediately preceding the disputed period i.e. before 1.1.2006. The opposite parties are directed to issue modified telephone bill to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order. The excess amount under the disputed bill, if already deposited by the complainant, shall be adjusted in the future telephone bills. The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1000/-. The complaint is allowed alongwith litigation costs of Rs. 1000/-.”



2. Perusal of the complaint file shows that grievance made by late Sh. Parkash Chand Mehra who had filed the complaint and who was predecessor in the interest of respondents, that he has been issued exorbitant telephone bill for the periods 1.1.2006 to 28.2.2006 in the sum of Rs. 2141/-. With a view to avoid dis-connection, he paid the amount. As during this period he alongwith his family was away from his house, so per him this was an execessive bill when calls were not made. He asked for detailed print out of the bill in question which was provided to him on 17.3.2006.



3. On its examination it transpired, that most of the calls had been made to Mobile Nos. 9418048895 and 9816488445. Deceased also lodged FIR at the Police Station, and appellants were informed in this behalf. Despite having made complaints regarding the excess billing when no relief was granted to him, he filed complaint out of which this appeal has arisen, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Complaint was allowed in the aforesaid terms. Hence this appeal.



4. When hearing in this case commenced Sh. Ratish Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case General Manager, Telecom V/s M. Krishnan and Another, III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC), and urged that remedy if any, available to the deceased during his life time, and after his death now to the respondents, was/is u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and by necessary implications as per this decision, jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is barred. Though he hastened to add that there is no subsisting dispute, because no excess billing had been done by his clients. Further according to him bill was issued to the respondent for the calls actually made from the telephone of the deceased Sh. Prakash Chand Mehra. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents prayed for upholding the order.



5. Looking to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is law of the land under article 141 of the Constitution of India, jurisdiction of the Fora under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been specifically held to be barred. We are of the view that complaint before District Forum below was not maintainable, and at the same time remedy if any open to the deceased Sh. Prakash Chand Mehra, and now to the respondents is by way of approaching the authorities U/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.



6. Faced with this situation, Sh. God, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that remedy to his clients has become time barred and if the impugned order is not upheld, it will leave the respondents high and dry, without any remedy in law.



7. Suffice it to say in this behalf even that if the respondents approach the authorities under section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and at the same time pray for condonation of delay, in such a situation we have no doubt in our mind that an application will be favourably considered keeping in view the fact that respondents having predecessor, and after his death they were bonafide prosecuting the remedy on the basis of legal advice. Subject to these observations order passed by District Forum, Kangra, camp at Dehra, in Consumer Complaint No. 356/2006, dated 17.9.2008 is set aside, and as a result of it said complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.



8. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith.
9. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.

D.F.Case No.370/2003

Complainant: Ranjit Ghosh,

S/o.Late Naskeri Nandan Ghosh,

at Kalnagate, Golghar Ghosh Para,

P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan.

VERSUS

Opposite Party:1. Superintendent of Post Office, Burdwan,

P.O. & Dist.-Burdwan.

2. Secretary,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

20 Ashoka Road, Sanchar Bhawan,

New Delhi.
3. Postal Superintendent,

Burdwan Head Post Office,

P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan.

4. Pranabananda Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

54, R.B. Ghosh Road, Burdwan,

Khoshbagan, P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan

Present : Hon’ble President: Sri Tushar Kanti Paladhi

Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jharna Majumdar

Hon’ble Member : Sri Ajit Kr. Basu

Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Subrata Ghosh,

Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1 & 3 : Ld. Advocate, Ranajit Ghosh.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2: Ld. Advocate,

Appeared for the Opposite Party No.4: Ld. Advocate Soma Mukhopadhyay

Date of delivery:18.11.2009

JUDGEMENT

This is a case U/S 12 of C.P. Act, alleging deficiency in service against the O.P., and praying for direction to the O.P. to pay maturity amount along with interest to the complainant.

The complainant have purchased four numbers of Kishan Vikas Patra from Burdwan Post Office bearing No.23 CC 130667, 23 CC 130668, 23 CC 130669 and 23 CC 130670, valuing Rs.10,000/- each.

The complainant had purchased those securities as a measure of small savings exclusively for his own purpose as well as that of his family. After that the complainant had thought of obtaining loan from Pranabananda Co-operative Bank. At the point of time the said pranabananda Co-operative Bank had asked the complainant to have the said KVP’s endorsesd in favour of said Bank by the O.P. No.1, and deposit the same with the said Bank for obtaining the loan. Accordingly, the complainant had house KVP’s endorsed in favour of the said Bank. In fact, however, the complainant did not proceed with his proposal for loan from the said Bank and he did not take any loan from the said Bank. Accordingly, the original of said KVP’s were not desposited with the said Bank. The original KVP’s are all along in the custody of the complainant and the said fact itself closed. According to the complainant, that the complainant did not take any loan from the said Cooperative Bank.

The complainant has asked the O.P. No.1 to cancel the endorsement when he was told that since original KVP’s are with the complainant, formal cancellation is not required. In the mean time the said Pranabananda Cooperative Bank has also gone into liquidation and all activities of the Bank has been closed. The said KVP’s matured on 3.5.2003. The complainant asked the O.P. No.1 to release the maturity amount against the said KVP’s pursuant to repeated requests for encashment of the said KVP’s, the O.P. No.1 wrote a letter to the Sr.Post Master, Burdwans Post Office vide Memo No.R 24/SB For/Burdwan 110 dated 30.6.2003 thereby asking the said Post Master to take necessary steps for early settlement of the case. A copy of the said letter was endorsed to the complainant also.

The concerned Postal Authority did not release the payment. In that circumstance an Advocate’s letter was issued on 11.8.2003 to the Postal Superintendent, Burdwan Division and the same was duly received by the addressee. Despite enquiry of a reasonable period thereof the complainant has not received the maturity amount of the said KVP’s. So, the complainant filed this case before this Forum.

The O.P did not filed any objection against the complaint of the complainant. It is proved beyond doubt that the KVPs’ were matured on 3.5.2003. According to the O.P. No.1, as the KVP had been endorsed in favour of the Cooperative Bank, they are not in a position to release the maturity value against the KVP.

Points for consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

FINDING WITH REASONS

The documents filed before the Forum and the arguments put forward by Ld. Lawyer of the complainant (O.P. remain absent on the date of argument). It should be taken for granted that the complainant is entitled to get matured value of the KVP, had he not taken any loan from the said Cooperative Bank. Thus, the complaint case disposed of accordingly. C.F. paid is sufficient. Hence,

ORDERED

that the case be disposed of. The O.P. No.1 is directed to make payment of the matured amount of the K.V.P.s in question, ignoring the endorsement therein. Let a copy of this judgement be sent to O.P. No.4 by registered post.

Present : President : Dipak Shyam Roy

Member(s) : Amitabha Roy Chowdhury & Sharmi Basu
_COMPLAINANT : Smt. Uma Das, d/o Sri N.C Das, 29, Narkel Bagan , P.S. Jadavpur, Kol-32

- >> versus << -

O. P. / O. PS : OTR-III, Office of the Area Manager, BSNL, Rani Kuthi,

154, N.S.C Bose Road, P.S. Regent Estate, Kolkata - 40

>> J U D G E M E N T <<
The complainant Smt. Uma Das of 29, Narkel Bagan ,P.S. Jadavpur, Kol-32, filed this complaint against the O.P AOTR-III, BSNL, Rani Kuthi , on charges of deficiency in service. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is enjoying three connections under the TRICON FACILITIES provided by the O.P consisting of :

(i) Landline no.24132069

(ii) Mobile No. 9433052526

(iii) BB Internet Connection no. 24187436

The complainant is paying the bills regularly. But she came to know from the receiver of her BB internet connection that her BB Connection has been disconnected on or about 28.4.2009 for non payment of bills. The complainant had lodged a complaint to the O.P on 29.4.2009 against this illegal disconnection, by registered post and the letter was received by the O.P on 2.5.2009. By that letter she had requested the O.P to reconnect her BB connection within 24 hours failing which the O.P shall have to pay Rs. 1000/- per diem. But the O.P did not care to respond and did not reconnect her BB connection. Hence this complaint.

The complainant prayed to this Forum for a direction upon the O.P to pay compensation till reconnection of the B B connection with interest .

The O.P/BSNL stated in the written version that they did not disconnect the BB service of the complainant. But they had disconnected the land line connection on 19.5.2009 for non payment of the concerned bill dt. 7.4.2009 within due date. O.P further stated that the complainant had actually consumed 4MB of BB usage time during April and 8 MB of BB usage time during May. So there is no question of disconnection of the BB service on or around 28.4.2009. His BB service is still in working status.

Decision of the Forum: We have examined the documents filed by the parties and also heard their Ld. Counsels. The complainant’s case in brief is that a) he pays the telephone bills regularly in respect of his landline telephone , his broadband internet connection and his mobile phone under TRICON FACILITIES . But his broad band connection has been disconnected by the O.P on or about 28.4.2009 for non-payment of bills , (b) On 29.4.2009 he had sent a letter of objection to the O.P against illegal disconnection of the broad band connection by registered post, which had been received by the O.P on 2.5.09.; He had requested the O.P to reconnect his broad band connection by that letter. But O.P did not take any action.

Against the allegation of disconnection, the O.P stated in written version that they have not disconnected his broad band, but they had disconnected his landline connection no. 24132069 on 19.5.2009 for non-payment of the bill dt. 7.4.2009. The due date for payment of the bill was 4.5.2009, but the complainant paid the bill on 25.5.2009 after it had been disconnected. His broad band was however not disconnected on or after 28.4.09 and he had made use of the broad band connection in April 2009 and May, 2009. During April he consumed 4 MB and during May he consumed 8 MB on his broad band connection no. 24187436. Although there was no usage during June, 2009, but the broad band connection is still in working status. From the documents (usage details) for the said broad band connection , as has been submitted by the O.P, we find that the said broad band service was accessed by the complainant on 4.4.09, 6.4.09, 24.4.09, 1.5.09 and 12.5.09. The complainant alleged that the broad band connection was disconnected on or around 28.4.09 and that he knew it from the voice recording from the receiver of the telephone of BB internet. O.Ps claim that the complainant had consumed BB usage time after 28.4.09 on 1.5.09 and 12.5.09 , which is supported by usage report of BSNL could not be contriverted by the complainant producing any reliable and convincing evidence besides his oral statement that he came to know from voice recording from the receiver of the telephone that his broad band connection has been disconnected. He also did not cross examine the O.P. We have therefore to rely upon the contention of the O.P that the Broad Band connection of the complainant had not been disconnected on or about 28.4.2009.

As regards the other allegation of the complainant that his letter dt. 29.4.2009 had not been responded by the O.P, although they received the letter on 2.5.09, the O.P stated that they did not receive the same. The O.P has submitted a copy of their incoming and outgoing record register to show that the letter was not received at their office. But we have seen that the postal Department has categorically declared that the letter had been delivered to the O.P on 2.5.2009 which we cannot disbelieve. May be that the said letter had been received by them on 2.5.09, but it was not duly recorded in their incoming register which , as we know from our experience , is not very uncommon in an office today. However, the allegation of the complainant regarding the disconnection of Broad Band being not acceptable, the O.P should have responded the letter of the complainant and in that case perhaps the present litigation could have been avoided. Sitting tight over the letter of the complainant, without giving any reply, certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part f service provider to his consumer.

Hence Ordered

That the complaint under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed in part and the complainant do get an order of cost only. The O.P is directed to pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the O.P within 30 days ,failing which it shall carry 10% interest until the payment is made.

Let a copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

Dear Sir,
I am from Vizianagaram (A.P.). On 24th Nov., i got an sms from
+52906001 and after that Re.1 was deducted from my balance. When i called in
Customer Care, they told me that you replied on this number that's why Re.1
was deducted but i never replied on it.....
Please Help me. I want to get back my Re.1 and don't want any sms from this
type of number .

Thank You
Abhishek
9441390304 ( My Mobile Number)

C.C. Case No. 77 of 2006

IN THE MATTER OF

Bijay Kumar Mishra,

S/o Lokanath Mishra

WNo- 15

P.O./P.S. Baripada

Dist- Mayurbhanj

.................... Complainant

-VRS-

1. T.D.M., B.S.N.L., Mayurbhanj

P.O./P.S. Baripada,

Dist – Mayurbhanj

......................Opposite party

Present:

Sri H. K. Panigrahi, President

Smt. Anupama Mohanta, Member

Sri K.C. Nayak, Member





For the Complainant – Sri P.K. Rath & Associates, Advocate, Baripada

For the Opposite party– Sri Himansu Sadual, Advocate, Baripada



Date of Hearing: 24-11-09

Date of order: 21-12-09



O R D E R



Smt. Anupama Mohanta, Member

This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP alleging deficiency in service.

The back ground facts disclosed in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a bonafide consumer of O.P., B.S.N.L. Mobile phone bearing no. 9437030389 and used to pay post paid charges as per the bills of O.P. from time to time. The complainant stated that he received a message from O.P. on 03.07.06 that unless outstanding amount of Rs. 1247.50 will not be paid by 05.07.06 his mobile’s incoming and outgoing facilities will be disconnected. After receipt of the message the complainant made payment of outstanding bill charges on 05.07.06. But on 07.07.06 complainant found that O.P. without any reason has cutoff the outgoing facility of his mobile phone after receiving the bill charges. On the same day 07.07.06 the complainant made complaint and on that day O.P. assured him that mobile phone outgoing facility has been wrongly disconnected and it will be connected by on the very day i.e. on 07.07.06. Further complainant alleged that O.P. did not restore the outgoing facility on 07.07.06 till 10.07.06. On 10.07.06 at about 3PM again made complaint and on several request O.P. restored the outgoing facility of his mobile phone on 11.07.06 at about 1PM. Due to such illegal disconnection made from 07.07.06 to 11.07.06 at 1PM by O.P. caused mental agony & harassment and complainant therefore filed this complaint u/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 and seeking direction to O.P. to pay Rs. 9,500/- towards compensation including ( loss of business, loss of prestige and reputation, mental agony and tension and cost of the litigation).

The O.P. on the other hand resisted the complaint and contested the claim. The O.P. admitted about the B.S.N.L cellular connection phone bearing no 9437030389 as well as payment on dt. 05.07.06. The O.P. submitted that complainant is a habitual defaulter in making payment of charges and has not been paid the bill charges on due date i.e. 24.06.06 against his phone for which cellular phone have been disconnected by O.P. from 06.07.06 to 07.07.07. Further averred that the allegation of complainant about the disconnection from 07.07.06 to 10.07.06 is not correct. Again mentioned in his W.V. that O.P has reconnected the outgoing facility on 07-07-06 and due to non payment in time the complainant’s mobile phone was disconnected on 06.07.06 and again 03.08.06. Again the O.P. submitted that O.P. never disconnected the mobile phone from 07-07-06 to 11-07-06 at 1PM. According to O.P. the allegation made by the complainant are baseless, false and fabricated and is not tenable in law. Further O.P. submitted that it has taken appropriate step under I.T.R. 443. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on his part and for the ends of justice complaint petition may kindly be dismissed with cost.

The complainant in support of his case relies a Xerox copy of duplicate bill marked as annexure -1 and a Xerox copy of money receipt of B.S.N.L. no. B0224785 dt. 05-07-06 marked as annexure -2. On the other hand O.P. has relied the Xerox copy of document Annexure-A (Terms and Condition of B.S.N.L. cellular connection) and annexure-B (list of all payments) and B (1) (list of product) .None of the parties have filed evidence affidavit.

It is admitted fact that complainant is a subscriber of B.S.N.L. Mobile Phone having mobile no – 9437030389. Undoubtedly therefore complainant is a consumer within the meaning of 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act 1986.

Now the question is to be decided whether the O.P. is deficient in rendering services to the complainant.

From the above and perusal of the complaint petition, written version and documents we find that allegation of complainant is that outgoing facilities of his mobile phone was disconnected by Op from 07-07-06 to 11-07-06 at 1PM. But O.P. pleaded that disconnection was made by O.P. on 06-07-06 to 07-07-06 and reconnected on 07-07-06 (in Para 4) But on perusal of the document of O.P. Annexure B(1) (listed of products) clearly shows that phone was disconnected (inactive) on 07-07-06. So the contention taken by O.P. about the disconnection and reconnection are not true. It appears from the Annexture-2 (Money receipt) that complainant has paid Rs. 1287/- towards this bill (Annexure-1) on 05-07-06, It’s payment due date was 24-06-06. But in spite of receiving the telephone bill charges on 05-07-06 (vide Annexure-2) O.P. have disconnected the outgoing facility of mobile phone of the complainant there after on 07-07-06. It is improper and unjustified. Which is amounts to deficiency in service u/s 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act 1986.

In the above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for by him. Hence it is ordered.

O R D E R

The complaint be and same is allowed on contest against O.P.. O.P is directed to pay compensation of Rs 300/-(Three hundred) only to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant for deficiency in service as well as to pay Rs.200/-(Two hundred) only towards cost of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Order pronounced in the open forum on this 21st day of December 2009 under my hand and seal of this forum.

CC Case no. 91 of 2009

Sri Tarun Basu

Paschimayan,

Haridradanga Main Road,

P.O.Chandernagore,

Dist.Hooghly … Complainant

-vs-

Sr.AO (TR & CC)

BSNL/Calcutta Telephone

Barabazar, G.T.Road,

P.O.Chandernagore,

Dist.Hooghly … Opp.Party

Present : D.K.Basu …. President

S.Basu …. Member


Date of delivery of judgement : 24.12.2009

The facts of the complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows :

The complainant Tarun Basu has filed the case against the Senior Accounts officer (TR and CC) BSNL/Calcutta Telephones Barabazar, G.T.Road, Chandernagore, Hooghly alleging that the complainant holds a land line telephone no. 26831211 and a Manik jore mobile connection no.9432259839 and also a Broad band connection under plan no. 250 since July 2007. Due to excessive bill during August to November 2007 the complainant desired to change broadband plan from 250 to the plan 900 and his base telephone from general to special plan with immediate effect and a letter to that regard addressed to AOTR , BSNL, Calcutta Telephones given on 29.11.2007. The OP did not change that plan as per his request till the end of January, 2008 and as usual inflated bill for December 2007 was submitted in January 08 on the basis of plan 250. He also conveyed strong objection for the same over the counter of Customer Care centre on 24.1.08 and the Op change the plan with effect from January, 2008. He also sent a letter on 28.1.2008 to the OP returning the bill of December, 2007 for rectification and the authority without rectifying the same demanded the bill amount. In the instant case BSNL authority may take one month time for changing the plan as demanded but in the case of the complainant that had not been made. When the correspondences were going on the OP disconnected the outgoing call facilities from 18.2.2008 and later on incoming facilities from 3.3.08. The telephone service is an essential service and despite strong protest on the activities of OP , the Op inform the complainant that his objection had been sent to the competent authority for consideration. In the meantime, the Op disconnected the petitioner’s Manikjore mobile connection despite uptodate payment of Manikjore bill in time. Thus, the petitioner has been harassed mentally and physically for the activities of the OP. By filing the instant case he has prayed for a direction for stopping the sending bills from 28.2.2008 till the date for which no telephone services are provided, write off unduly created overdue fake bill amount , give retrospective effect of Broadband connection under plan 900 from the 1st December, 2007 and rectification of the Bill of December, 2007, compensation of Rs.5.0 lakhs for harassment and mental agony and other reliefs.



The OP has contested this case by filing written version whereon he has denied all the material averment of the complainant contending inter alia that as the dispute in regard to exorbitant and /or excessive billing ofment of telephone bill , this Forum has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute under Section 7B , Indian Telegraph Act (vide AIR 1996, Supreme court, paged 2476). It has admitted in the written version the receipt of application for change of Broadband plan from Home-250 to Home UL -900 received on 29.11.2007 and was forwarded to Commercial officer, Serampur on 22.12.2007 for giving effect on and from 1.1.08 as usual as per guideline, Broadband customer will apply to respective Area Commercial officer for plan change from 25th of the current month to 5th of the next month and in the instant case the complainant has been enjoying UL 900 plan with effect from 1.1.2008 and not from 3.1.2008 . The bill period December 2007 dated 7.1.2008 does not suffer any irregularity or abnormality.No negligence or material irregularity has been caused on th part of the OP and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.



In view of the above facts the following points can be taken into account for proper adjudication.



1) Whether this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain to decide the disputes raised in the complaint.



2) Whether the Op has committed any deficiency in service ?



3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?



FINDINGS WITH REASONS:

All these points are taken together for the sake of convenience and also for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions.

The learned lawyer of the OP has argued that he has vividly described the allegations made against him in the complaint in his written versionwhereon he has answered all the disputes raised by the complainant. The plan change become effective from the lst day of every month.



It is admitted fact that the complainant issued a letter for changing the plan 250 to plan no.900 on 29.11.2007 as the complainant applied for the same change on 29.11.2007 it could not be effected from 1.12.2007 and that change of plan was effected on and from 1.1.08. According to the Rule the change of plan should be communited to the authoirity within 25th of each month and the change of plan will be effected from lst dayof the next month. As the complailnant applied for the same on 29.11.2007 , the plan would not be changed on 1.12.2007 and giving effect the change on 1.1.08 there cause no negligence or deficiency in service. He has further aruged that though disconnection of the telephone was made but the same telephone was not surrendered and the authority will provide bill until the same is surrendered by the consumer.Thus, by sending the bill during disconnection period, the Op has not committed any irregularity. He has further argued that as the dispute is for bill amount , this Forum has no jurisdiction to settle the matter and pursuant to the Section 7B of Indian telegraph Act the case should be referred to the proper authority.



Considering the argument of the complainant who has argued depicting the complaint case vividly , and also bearing in mind the argument of the learned lawyer of the OP as cited above, we are of opinion, that the complaint is made for settling the dispute in respect of the Bill amount of December, 2007 and alike . Thus, in our considered view purusuant to Ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme court in AIR l996 page 2476 it is provided as “it is settled law that reasons are required to be recorded when it affects the public interest . It is seen that u/s 7B , the award is conclusive when the citizen complaints that he was not correctly put to bill of the calls he had made and disputed the demand for payment . The statutory remedy open to him is one provided u/s 7B of the Act.”



In view of the above Ruling we are of opinion, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute arose in the complaint. The proper Forum according to Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act is the Arbitration as per Act. The complainant is therefore directed to redress his grievance from the Arbitrator as specified in the Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act.



The case is accordingly disposed of without awarding any relief to the complainant.

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of beyond the statutory period.



Dictated and corrected by me

Complaint Case No.156/2009

Date of Institution 16-6-2009

Date of Decision 28-12-2009

Dandu Ram son of Sh. Ram Dayal resident of village Jukain, Post Office Nabahi, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

.. Complainant.

V/S

Telecom District Manager , Bharat Sanchat Nigam Limited Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.



…..Opposite party
For the complainant In person



For the opposite party Sh.Gopal Singh Thakur, Advocate



Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.



ORDER.

This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite party .The case of the complainant is that he is subscriber of land line phone No.230594 which was installed at his premises in the year 1997 by the opposite party from Telephone Exchange Sarkaghat. The complainant alleged that the telephone mostly remained dead and the said telephone remained defective and he was not able to attend and hear the calls due to disturbance in the telephone . The complaint alleged that he complained to the opposite party several times but it had paid no heed to redress the complaints . The complainant further alleged that he had made complaints with the opposite party in its register vide No.366239,368907, 376017, 377853, 379849, 397023, 403864,411560, and 422268 on different dates . The complainant further alleged that he is not in a position to make a proper use of his telephone as when any call is received by him on his number , the telephone becomes dead and it revives automatically. The complainant further alleged that he is facing this problem since 1-5-2007 and had made several written as well as oral complains to the SDO

( Telecom ) Sarkaghat but of no avail . The opposite party was served with legal notice on 21-3-2009 but despite that the problems still continue . The complainant alleged that due to defective telephone , he had suffered great monetary loss and mental harassment .With these allegations , the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite party to restore the defective telephone . Apart from this , damages in the sum of Rs.30,000/- has been claimed as monetary loss and mental harassment besides cost of the complaint in the sum of Rs.10,000/- has also been claimed.

2. The opposite party has resisted the complaint by filing written reply. The opposite party had admitted that the complainant is its subscriber . Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied in totality. The opposite party averred that on receipt of complaints from the complainant, fault in the telephone was removed on same day or by next day except cable theft or some holidays . It has further been averred that the telephone remained functional except for few days i.e. from 18-4-2008 to 23-4-20o8 for six days and 9-6-2008 to 17-6-2008 for 9 days and from 8-8-2008 to 13-8-2008 for six days and rent rebate of Rs.77/- has been given to the complainant for the dead period of the telephone and the amount will be adjusted in the future bills and copy of information has annexed as Annexure R-1. It has been contended that the question of not attending the telephone did not arise at all. The opposite party had been attending the complaint of the complainant within a day or two days . The allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has also been denied The opposite party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverted the allegations made in the reply .

4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case .The case of the complainant is that his land line telephone No.230594 remains defective since 1-5-2007 and for redressal of his grievance he had made several written as well as oral complaints with the opposite party but despite that his grievance has not been redressed . On the other hand , the case of the opposite party is that when ever the complaint regarding the defect in the telephone of the complainant has been received by it , fault in the telephone has been removed either on same day or by the next day except cable theft or some holidays . Further case of the opposite party is that the telephone of the complainant remained in working condition except for few days for which the department has given rent rebate of Rs.77/- to the complainant and the amount would be adjusted in future bills . The ld. counsel for the opposite party further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled General Manager Telecom vs M Krishnan and another in Civil Appeal No.(s) 7687 of 2004 decided on 1-9-2009.

5 The scrutiny of the record reveals that the complainant has filed the complaint on the ground that his telephone remained dead and defective and he is not able to attend and hear the telephone calls due to defect in the telephone . In a case titled as General Manager Telecom vs M Krishnan and another in Civil Appeal No.(s) 7687 of 2004 decided on 1-9-2009 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“……………………………………………………..In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection /act is by implication barred.

Section 7 B of the Telegraph Act reads as under

S 7 B Arbitration of disputes

(1)Excepts as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line , appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section

(2) The award of the arbitrator under Sub S ( 1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court.

Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules.

It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law, Hence in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach.” ……….”

6. In the present case also , the dispute raised by the complainant is with respect to the fact that his telephone remained dead for a particular period and also that his telephone remains defective and he has been facing this problem from 1-5-2007. Further case of the complainant is that he was debarred to avail the telephone facility due to defective telephone and the opposite party had been wrongly and illegally charging rent from him. In our opinion, the dispute raised by the complainant is a dispute with respect to the telephone line and appliance / apparatus within the meaning of sub section ( 1) of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act . Sub Section (1) of Section 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act is in wide terms and any dispute concerning telephone lines, appliance or apparatus is covered by it. Therefore in these circumstances , aforesaid case law of the Hon’ble Apex court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court , when there is a special remedy provided under section 7-B of the Telegraph Act , the remedy of the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is barred . Therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs . However, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the complainant is at liberty to exhaust his remedy available to him under section 7-B of the Telegraph Act in accordance with law .

7 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

8 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Consumer Complaint No: 234/2008
Date of presentation: 22.07.2008

Date of decision: 28.12.2009
Rajesh Manta S/O late Shri S.R. Manta,

Village Bhamnoli (Kaptu) P.O. Summerkot,

Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P.
… Complainant.

Versus

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Through its General Manager,

Telecom, SDA Complex, Block No.35,

Kasumpti, Shimla-9, H.P.

2. Sub Divisional Officer,

Telephone Exchange Rohru, District Shimla, HP.

… Opposite Parties.

For the complainant: Ms. Uma Manta, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This instant complaint, has been filed by Shri Rajesh Manta, by invoking the provisions of Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, he is subscriber of landline telephone bearing No.246617, which is installed at his residential premises by the OP-BSNL. It is averred that he, is orchardist and agriculturist and his house, is, located at the lonely place, which is far away from village. The complainant, further proceeded to aver, that, the aforesaid landline telephone is, out of order and not functioning for more-than nine months, though, the OP-BSNL, is, charging rental, yet, has failed to make the aforesaid telephone functional and workable, despite lodging of various complaints. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP, in its written version to the complaint, raised various preliminary objections, regarding maintainability of the complaint, and admitted that the complainant, is, subscriber of landline telephone bearing No.246617. It is contended that owing to theft of cables at, Bhamnoli village, there has been break-down of the telephone serviced, which is beyond the control of the OP and they have been prevented by circumstances beyond their control in early restoration of the disrupted lines. It is further contended that suitable rental rebate has been afforded to the consumer and further billing stopped and he has also been requested to convert the landline connection into WLL. Hence, it is contended that their, is, no deficiency in service on their part.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, at, length and, have, also, thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.

5. The grouse of the complainant, is, that, his landline telephone bearing No.246617, is, out of order and not in working condition, hence, disabled him of its usage, inasmuch, as, the OPs-BSNL did not render it in a workable condition. The OP-BNSNL, in, its reply has contended that, owing to theft of cable wires, their has been break-down of the telephone service, and it being beyond their control, hence, is exculpating its liability.

6. It is, not, in dispute that, the complainant, is, subscriber of landline telephone bearing No.246617, which is installed at, his residential premises, by the OPs-BSNL. The only dispute, which requires adjudication by this Forum, is, whether the OPs-BSNL, is, guilty of rendering deficiency in service, or not. However, the OPs-BSNL, in it reply which is duly supported by an affidavit of Shri Chuni Lal, working as D.E. (Admn) in the office of General Manager, BSNL, Shimla, had contended that, owing to theft of cable wires in the area, they have been prevented by circumstances beyond their control, in early restoration of the disrupted landline telephone. They further contend that suitable rental rebate has been afforded to the complainant and further billing has also been stopped and the complainant, has, also been requested vide letter dated 24.07.2008 to convert his landline telephone into WLL connection, to avoid disruption of the facility. Since, the above fact has not been repulsed or rebutted by the complainant by adduction of cogent, convincing and apposite evidence to the contrary, hence, cannot be discarded and has to be accorded sanctity.

7. The disruption, in the landline telephone of the complainant erupted owing to theft of cable wires, which in our considered opinion, was, beyond their control and could not be prevented by them, hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OPs-BSNL. Since, the OPs-BSNL, in its reply has contended that suitable rental rebate has been afforded to the complainant, as also, further billing has been stopped, and that the complainant has been offered WLL connection, therefore, we deem it fit and appropriate to dispose of this complaint, with a direction to the OPs-BSNL, to, afford suitable rental rebate to the complainant, if not already afforded and further to provide, him, WLL connection, if he so chooses. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Case No. : 98/2009

Date of Inst. : 12/08/2009

Date of decision : 10/12/2009

Smt.Parmod Rampal, W/o Sh. Parvesh Kumar, V.P.O. Mukandpur Distt. Nawanshahr (S.B.S. Nagar), Punjab

….Complainant.

Versus

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L), Telephone Exchange, Jalandhar through its Principal General Manager.

2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L), Telephone Exchange, Nawanshahr (S.B.S. Nagar) through its Accounts Officer (Billing Section)

3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L),Telephone Exchange, Banga Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr (S.B.S. Nagar) through its S.D.O.

4. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L), Telephone Exchange, Mukandpur, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr (S.B.S. Nagar) through its J.E/ J.T.O

….Respondents

Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986



BEFORE: SHRI S.M.S. MAHAL, PRESIDENT

SMT. JAGJIT KAUR MANDER, MEMBER

SH. SUKHDEV SINGH, MEMBER



Present: Sh.Rohit Bassi, advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Sh.A.K. Sareen, advocate, counsel for the Ops.

S.M.S. MAHAL, PRESIDENT

Smt. Parmod Rampal (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L), Telephone Exchange, Jalandhar through its Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L), Telephone Exchange, Nawanshahr (S.B.S. Nagar) through its Accounts Officer (Billing Section) , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L),Telephone Exchange, Banga Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr (S.B.S. Nagar) through its S.D.O. and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L), Telephone Exchange, Mukandpur, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr (S.B.S. Nagar) through its J.E/ J.T.O (hereinafter called as OP No1,2,3 & 4 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops to withdraw the bills dated 24/11/2008 and dated 05/12/2008 to the tune of Rs.20152/- and 24,367/- respectively and also pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for mental as well as physical harassment along with Rs.6,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. The brief admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops with regard to telephone connection bearing No.01823-276846. The Ops had issued the aforesaid bills to the complainant which are alleged by the complainant to be illegal on the ground that the same are arbitrary and in-genuine. Hence this complaint.

3. In the written version filed by the Ops, the allegations of the complainant were denied and the bills in question were claimed to be perfectly legal and valid. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.

4. Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and other documents.

5. We have considered the written as well as oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.

6. At the very outset it may be observed that the controversy in this case relates to the telephone bills only. In General Manager, Telecom VS M.Krishna & Anr. 2009 (4) Civil Court Cases 001 (S.C) the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that when special remedy is provided U/s 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act then remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.

7. Section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act relates to the arbitration of disputes. Rule 413 of the telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to telegraph rules and a telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for the default of payment under rule 443 of the Rules.

8. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement, the complaint is not legally maintainable and as such the same is dismissed.

9. The complainant may avail the remedy available to him as per Rule 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act.

10. Parties shall bear their own costs.

11 Copies of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

12 File be consigned to the record room.

Complainant:
K.R. Vijayendra Char

Brunda Nilaya

Behind Police Narayanappa House

Near Vinayaka Temple

Dyavasandra, K.R. Puram

Bangalore-560 036

V/s
Opposite Party:

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer

Bangalore Telecom

Bharat Samachar Nigam Ltd.,

CACT Exchange

Krishnarajapuram

Bangalore

2. The General Managar

Bangalore Telecom

Halasore Division

Bangalore

O R D E R

SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:

The grievance of the complainant against Op is that he had submitted an application to Op at Kammanahalli exchange on 18/11/2008 for shifting a telephone connection with broadband facility. That he visited officers of Op many times but those officers who had heard him on the matter though assured that they will attend did nothing. Then he also made a complaint to the area manager on 17/02/2009. He also wrote a letter to the General Manager but did not result in any better way than protracting the issue. That his son is studying in final year B.E, internet connection was inevitable to him but the Op did not respond. Hence prayed for direction to OP2 to provide requested facility and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
Op has appeared through an advocate and filed version admitting the request of the complainant to shift broadband line on 28/11/2008. OP has further stated that the area where the telephone facility was requested is a new area completely non-feasible, only 10% cable is working and therefore they could not take up the shifting work. That they even offered wireless telephone but the complainant refused to have it. That connection could not be provided due to non feasibility and that BBMP had taken up lot of civil works like drainage repair, widening and demolishing old drainage etc. and that civil work at that stage was in full swing and that came in their way for acting on the request of the complainant and thus denying deficiency at their end has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR SCW 2009 page 5631 regarding maintainability of the complaint.



In the course of enquiry into the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in the complaint. Op has not filed affidavit evidence. Heard counsel for both sides and perused the records.



On the above materials following points for determination arise.

1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in shifting the telephone as proposed by him.

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

For the reasons given below the first point is answered in the negative.

For answer on point No.2: See the order below.



REASONS:

Answer on point No.1 : Op has conceded that they could not arrange shifting of telephone on the application filed by the complainant on 18/11/2008. The Op in the version as narrated above referred to certain obstacles in their shifting telephone of the complainant and pleaded that Bangalore Mahanagara Palike had taken up number of civil works including widening of road, removal of debris, replacement of certain cables etc., and therefore had offered cordless telephone facilities to the complainant but the complainant declined to have it. These problems faced by the Op for shifting the telephone is not denied by the complainant and the inability expressed by the Op are left uncontroverted.
The complainant while this complaint is pending made submission that pending disposal of this complaint, Op has shifted the telephone as desired by him and his grievance is set right. Therefore, the only question that would arise for our consideration is whether the reasons given by the Op in not shifting the phone within the reasonable time could be accepted. In the absence of denial of those contention of the Op, we find no justification to reject the grounds offered by the op in not establishing the phone at an early date. Therefore, considering the problem put forth by the Op are genuine and therefore we find no reasons to reject it. Further, the counsel appearing for the complainant by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 AIR SCW page 5631 argued that a dispute arising on maintenance or telephone of telegraph lines, dispute regarding the bills, appliances or apparatus such a dispute shall be raised before an arbitrator as contemplated under section 7 B of Telegraph Act. On perusal of the judgment relied upon by the counsel for Op, we concur with him and hold that the complaint regarding any dispute with regard to telephone lines etc., are to be dealt with by the arbitrator under the act. Hence, this complaint which is in connection with the error of telephone in our view would fall within the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, considering the fact that the Op has set right the grievance of the complainant by shifting the telephone, we are inclined to close this complaint by observing that the Op if he had some obstacles shifting, ought to have informed the complainant about their inability and they should follow reciprocating with consumers. With this, we hold that the complaint is to be dismissed and we pass the following order.

C.C.No. 314/ 2008

Shri.P. Uma Shankar,

S/o. V. Ponnusamy,

Kulakarai 2nd Street,

Sungauvarchatram

Kancheepuram District. …. Complainant
- Vs –
1. The Divisional Engineer,

B.S.N.L., Chennai Telephones,

Sriperumbudur Telephone Exchange,

Sriperumbudur.



2. The Accounts Officer TR WE V

BSNL, Chennai Telephone,

92/93, Arcot Road,

Chennai – 600 026. …. Opposite Parties



Date of complaint : 08.08.2007

For Complainant : M/s. P. Vinauyagamurhty, &

P. Palaniappan, Counsel.

For Opposite Parties : Mr. J. Venkatesan, Counsel.

2. C.C.No. 126/ 2009

H. Abdul Raheem,

No.2, Devaraja Mudali Street,

T5riplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Complainant



Vs

The Manager-Customer Care,

M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd.,

5th Floor, Spencer Plaza,

769, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002. Opposite Party



Date of complaint. : 10.02.2009

For the complainant : M/s. R. Ramani &

Dr.T. Janardhanon,Counsel.

For the opposite party : Mr. A. Muraleedharun, Advocate.



THIRU.P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT

Complaint under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The complainants in the above two cases, individually, have filed complaints, seeking certain reliefs in their complaints alleging deficiency in service against the B.S.N.L. and M/s. Aircel Cellular Ltd., on the grounds either they have collected excess amount and refund the same and to restore the land line and issue the correct bill and waive the subsequent claim and compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony. Since the question of law involved in the above two cases is the same, the two complaints have been taken together for disposal and a common order is passed.

2 The counsel for the opposite parties would submit that the complaints against telecom services are not maintainable before the Consumer For a in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2009 C.T.J.1062 (Supreme Court) (CP) in the case of the General Manager – Vs – M. Krishnanan and another, The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case has held that the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints relatable to telecom disputes.” The Apex Court further held as follows: “ IN our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred” . But the counsel for the complainants would submit that the decision of the Apex Court stated supra is not applicable to all the cases involving telecom disputes. This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and by order dated 30.11.2009 in F.A.No.460 of 2004 etc., The Hon’ble State Commission held that “in view of section 7-B of the Telegraphic Act the jurisdiction of this Forum is ousted whether it is implied or otherwise as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Chennai in the case of The General Manager, Chennai Telephones, Chennai and two others – Vs – Meenakshi Annie, (Advocate ) in F.A. No.460 of 2004 dated 30.11.2009 has held as follows: “ The cases filed by the complainants, against the Telecommunication Services, whether it is BSNL or against others are all not maintainable, before Consumer Fora and the parties have to seek their remedies under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, before the Arbitrator who is to be appointed, by the Central Government. In this view, all the appeals filed by the opposite parties Telecommunication Service, have to be allowed and the appeals filed by the complainants, those who have lost before the District Fora, have to be dismissed, as complaints are not maintainable. “

3. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2009 C.T.J. (S.C.) (C.P) Page 1062kl and the decision of the Hon’ble Tamil Naud State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission made in F.A. 460 of 2004 etc., dated 30.11.2009 are squarely applicable to the cases on hand. Following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the Consumer For a has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints relatable to telecom disputes.

In fine, the above two complaints are dismissed. No costs.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December 2009.

Tamil Selvan. G.

Represented by his authorized agent,

Senguttuvan.G.

New No.9, B-3, Brindavan Apartments,

Rakkiappa Street,

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. … Complainant

Vs
1. Deputy General Manager,

BSNL Chennai Telephones,

407/408, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 035.
2. Chief Accounts Officer,

BSNL Chennai Telephones,

G.R. Complex,

Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
3. Senior Accounts Officer,

BSNL Chennai Telephones,

G.R. Compex, Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035. … Opposite Parties



Date of complaint : 03.12.2007

For Complainant : Mr. G.Senguttuvan, Authorized Agent.

For Opposite Party : Mr. Y. Bhuvanesh Kumar & M. Godlygen,Counsel.

THIRU.P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT

Complaint under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. This complainant has been filed by the complaint, seeking certain reliefs in their complaints alleging deficiency in service against the M/s. B.S.N.L., Chennai Ltd., on the grounds that have illegally collected excess amount and refund the same and to give explanations for the act of sending incorrect bills, notices and change the bill amount and compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony.

2 The counsel for the opposite parties would submit that the complaints against telecom services are not maintainable before the Consumer For a in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2009 C.T.J.1062 (Supreme Court) (CP) in the case of the General Manager – Vs – M. Krishnanan and another, The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case has held that the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints relatable to telecom disputes.” The Apex Court further held as follows: “ IN our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred” . But the counsel for the complainants would submit that the decision of the Apex Court stated supra is not applicable to all the cases involving telecom disputes. This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and by order dated 30.11.2009 in F.A.No.460 of 2004 etc., The Hon’ble State Commission held that “in view of section 7-B of the Telegraphic Act the jurisdiction of this Forum is ousted whether it is implied or otherwise as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Chennai in the case of The General Manager, Chennai Telephones, Chennai and two others – Vs – Meenakshi Annie, (Advocate ) in F.A. No.460 of 2004 dated 30.11.2009 has held as follows: “ The cases filed by the complainants, against the Telecommunication Services, whether it is BSNL or against others are all not maintainable, before Consumer Fora and the parties have to seek their remedies under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, before the Arbitrator who is to be appointed, by the Central Government. In this view, all the appeals filed by the opposite parties Telecommunication Service, have to be allowed and the appeals filed by the complainants, those who have lost before the District Fora, have to be dismissed, as complaints are not maintainable. “

3. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2009 C.T.J. (S.C.) (C.P) Page 1062kl and the decision of the Hon’ble Tamil Naud State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission made in F.A. 460 of 2004 etc., dated 30.11.2009 are squarely applicable to the cases on hand. Following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the Consumer For a has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints relatable to telecom disputes.

In fine, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December 2009.

P. Viswanathan,

20, Gangaiamman Koil Street,

Oorapakkam, Gudevanchery,

Kanchipuram. … Complainant


Vs

The General Manager,

BSNL Chengalpattu – SSA

29, Eldams Road,

Chennai – 600 018. … Opposite Party



Date of complaint : 19.08.2004

For Complainant : M/s. Suresh & Associates

For Opposite Party : M/s. N. Biswanath & J. Venkatesan, Counsel.



THIRU.P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT





1. This complainant has been filed by the complaint, Complaint under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a dirction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the loss in business and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- as costs of the complaint.

2 The counsel for the opposite parties would submit that the complaints against telecom services are not maintainable before the Consumer For a in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2009 C.T.J.1062 (Supreme Court) (CP) in the case of the General Manager – Vs – M. Krishnanan and another, The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case has held that the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints relatable to telecom disputes.” The Apex Court further held as follows: “ IN our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred” . But the counsel for the complainants would submit that the decision of the Apex Court stated supra is not applicable to all the cases involving telecom disputes. This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and by order dated 30.11.2009 in F.A.No.460 of 2004 etc., The Hon’ble State Commission held that “in view of section 7-B of the Telegraphic Act the jurisdiction of this Forum is ousted whether it is implied or otherwise as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Chennai in the case of The General Manager, Chennai Telephones, Chennai and two others – Vs – Meenakshi Annie, (Advocate ) in F.A. No.460 of 2004 dated 30.11.2009 has held as follows: “ The cases filed by the complainants, against the Telecommunication Services, whether it is BSNL or against others are all not maintainable, before Consumer Fora and the parties have to seek their remedies under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, before the Arbitrator who is to be appointed, by the Central Government. In this view, all the appeals filed by the opposite parties Telecommunication Service, have to be allowed and the appeals filed by the complainants, those who have lost before the District Fora, have to be dismissed, as complaints are not maintainable. “

3. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2009 C.T.J. (S.C.) (C.P) Page 1062kl and the decision of the Hon’ble Tamil Naud State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission made in F.A. 460 of 2004 etc., dated 30.11.2009 are squarely applicable to the cases on hand. Following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the Consumer For a has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints relatable to telecom disputes.

In fine, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December 2009.

Mrs. Amsavalli Kannappan,

# Galaxy, 30, 48th Street,9th Avenue,

Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. …. Complainant

- Vs –

M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

Oceanic Tower,

101, Santhome High Road,

Santhome, Chennai – 600 028. …. Opposite Party



Date of complaint : 17.07.2007

For Complainant : M/s. G.A. Thiyagarajan & G.A. Girija

Counsel.

For Opposite Party : M/s. M.B. Gopalan,l N. Vijayaraghavan &

M.B. Raghavan, Counsel.

2. C.C.No. 27/ 2008



MRS. VIJAYAM IYER,

17/51, Navaneetham,

Kammath Lane,

Ernakulam Road,

Aluva – 683 101. Complainant



Vs



1. The Deputy General Manager,

Chennai Telephones,

Panagal Buildings III Floor,

No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,

Chennai – 600 015.



2. Accounts Officer (C & A) (SW),

BSNL , Chennai Telehones,

6, New Street, Alandur,

Chennai – 600 016. Opposite Parties



Date of complaint. : 28.01.2008

For the complainant : Mr. C. Manohar, Counsel.

For the opposite parties : Mr. J. Venkatesan, Counsel.



THIRU.P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT

Complaint under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The complainants in the above two cases, individually, have filed complaints, seeking certain reliefs in their complaints alleging deficiency in service against the M/s. Bhartii Airtel, Ltd., and on the grounds either they have illegally collected excess amount and refund the same and to restore the land line and issue the correct bill and waive the subsequent claim and compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony. Since the question of law involved in the above two cases is the same, the two complaints have been taken together for disposal and a common order is passed.

2 The counsel for the opposite parties would submit that the complaints against telecom services are not maintainable before the Consumer For a in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2009 C.T.J.1062 (Supreme Court) (CP) in the case of the General Manager – Vs – M. Krishnanan and another, The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case has held that the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints relatable to telecom disputes.” The Apex Court further held as follows: “ IN our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred” . But the counsel for the complainants would submit that the decision of the Apex Court stated supra is not applicable to all the cases involving telecom disputes. This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and by order dated 30.11.2009 in F.A.No.460 of 2004 etc., The Hon’ble State Commission held that “in view of section 7-B of the Telegraphic Act the jurisdiction of this Forum is ousted whether it is implied or otherwise as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Chennai in the case of The General Manager, Chennai Telephones, Chennai and two others – Vs – Meenakshi Annie, (Advocate ) in F.A. No.460 of 2004 dated 30.11.2009 has held as follows: “ The cases filed by the complainants, against the Telecommunication Services, whether it is BSNL or against others are all not maintainable, before Consumer Fora and the parties have to seek their remedies under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, before the Arbitrator who is to be appointed, by the Central Government. In this view, all the appeals filed by the opposite parties Telecommunication Service, have to be allowed and the appeals filed by the complainants, those who have lost before the District Fora, have to be dismissed, as complaints are not maintainable. “

3. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2009 C.T.J. (S.C.) (C.P) Page 1062kl and the decision of the Hon’ble Tamil Naud State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission made in F.A. 460 of 2004 etc., dated 30.11.2009 are squarely applicable to the cases on hand. Following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the Consumer For a has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints relatable to telecom disputes.

In fine, the above two complaints are dismissed. No costs.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 7th day of January 2010