By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant is aggrieved that even though he paid his telephone bill for March, 2006 on 07-3-06 opposite party disconnected the service to his telephone on 27-4-06 for the reason that his telephone bill for the month of March is unpaid. He prays for compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed version disputing the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this complaint. It is submitted that Sec.7 B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides for arbitration and therefore it expressly bars the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. That in the case General Manager, B.S.N.L., Vs. C.D.R.F. 2000 (2) KLT 195, Hon'ble High Court has held Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding services provided under Indian Telegraph Act. That although in a later decision General Manager, B.S.N.L. Vs. Krishnan 2003(1) KLT 817, Hon'ble High Court held that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate telecom matters this order is challenged by B.S.N.L. vide SLP No.18409/03 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That as per interim order the operation of the said order is stayed. It is further submitted that as per the daily list forwarded from postal authority complainant had paid only Rs.257/- instead of Rs.357/-. That opposite party was not aware of payment until the receipt was produced since the post office, Kadannamanna did not issue proper payment advice to the account section. That only outgoing calls were disconnected on 27-4-06 for non payment and was reconnected on 12-5-06 after production of receipt at the exchange. The postal department failed to provide proper intimation of payment and the shortage of Rs.100/- still exists in respect of the telephone number. There is no deficiency of service and complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 marked on behalf of opposite party.<br /> 4. Points that arise for consideration:- <br /> (i) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint? <br /> (ii) Whether opposite party has committed deficiency in service? <br /> (iii) If so reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> According to opposite party Sec.7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 expressly bars jurisdiction of Consumer for a to entertain complaints dealing with telephone matters. We are unable to agree with this contention of opposite party for the reason that it is settled position of law that inspite of a clause for arbitration Consumer for a can exercise jurisdiction since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. Counsel for opposite party further contended that as per the decision rendered in 2000(2) KLT 195 the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try telecom matters in view of Sec.7B of Indian Telegraph Act. In the decision rendered later in 2003(1) KLT 817 General Manager, B.S.N.L. Vs. Krishnan it was held that Consumer Forum can adjudicate telecom matters. It was submitted that appeal has been preferred by B.S.N.L. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against this decision and that the case is stayed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP 18409/03 on 29-11-04. That it view of the stay this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with all respects to the Hon'ble Apex Court and higher judiciary we proceed to discuss our view regarding the question of jurisdiction as disputed by opposite party. We do not agree with the counsel for opposite party for the reason that the interim stay if any granted on 29-11-04 is applicable only to the order that is appealed against. We consider that what is stayed in SLP 18409/03 on 29-11-04 is the execution of the ultimate direction in that case and the law declared is certainly binding on us till it is held as overruled. A perusal of the order shows that it is an interim order passed till the disposal of the case. We brought to the notice of counsel for opposite party that cases against BSNL (Telecom matters) are being decided by Hon'ble National Commission as is evident from the various decisions reported in consumer journals. This was contraverted by counsel for opposite party. He submitted that the stay if any is applicable only to the State of Kerala. District Forum being subordinate to the National Commission is bound to follow the decision of Apex Commission. Counsel for opposite party made a submission that cases against, Telecom., BSNL can be kept in abeyance till the final disposal of SLP 18409/03 pending before the Apex Court. Consumer Protection Act provides time limit of 90 days to dispose a case. Although this time limit is not mandatory, to keep the cases pending indefinitely would be doing injustice tot he complainants. Especially Consumer Forum being an authority which allows parties to appear and litigate in person, without the help of lawyers, it would cause much hardships to them if the cases are kept pending indefinitely. With all respects to the Apex Court, and humbly submitting ourselves to the rule of 'Stare decisis' we are of the view that when a position of law is declared it is binding until it is discussed and overruled. We hold that the rule laid in General Manager, B.S.N.L. Vs. Krishnan 2003(1) KLT 817 (F.B.) is still in force and therefore this Forum has jurisdiction to try this complaint. The point found in favour of complainant.<br /> 6. Point (ii)& (iii):-<br /> Complainant's say is that he regularly pays his telephone bills and there are no arrears till date. The telephone bill for the month of March was paid by him on 07-3-06. Ext.A2 is the telephone bill dated, 07-3-06 for Rs.357/-. Ext.A3 is the receipt issued for remittance of the above amount in Kadannamanna Post Office. Complainant alleges that even though the bill was paid opposite party illegally disconnected is telephone service on 27-4-06. The telephone is used in his shop and therefore he had to suffer much hardships due to the disconnection. The service was restored only after he filed this complaint before the Forum. Opposite party admits that services to the complainant's telephone was disconnected due to non payment of bill but that only outgoing calls were barred. It happened only because as per the daily list forwarded from postal authority to opposite party, the complainant had paid only Rs.257/- instead of Rs.357/-. Ext.B1 is the daily list. It shows that remittance towards complainant's telephone number is only Rs.257/-; when actually as per Ext.A3 receipt complainant has paid Rs.357/-. The omission however small, has resulted in the disconnection of telephone service of the complainant. The fervent arguement put forward by the complainant who appeared in person was that on coming to know of the disconnection he immediately approached opposite party and enquired the reason. When opposite party informed that his bill for month of March was unpaid he again approached opposite party with Ext.A3 receipt and requested for restoration of service. Opposite party failed to heed to his request. The connection was restored only after a few days of filing this complaint. The argument put forward by the complainant is probable. In ordinary parlance in such a situation, an ordinary consumer would first approach opposite party to know the reason for disconnection. On understanding the allegation of unpaid bill, he would have produced Ext.A3 receipt. Service was disconnected on 27-4-06. Complaint was filed on 02-5-06 and service restored on 12-5-06. Only after getting tired of knocking all possible nearest and easily available doors does a consumer come before the forum for redressal of a grievance as in the present case. Telephone is no more a luxury and has become an essential service. Accordingly officers of the Telephone Department should be careful to cordially deal with consumers. Absence of prompt, proper and qualitative service would amount to deficiency in service. Admittedly service was interrupted on 27-4-06 and was restored on 12-5-06. The service was interrupted for no fault on the side of complainant. We find opposite party deficient in service. Complainant has to be reasonably compensated for the hardships suffered by him. We consider complainant is to be given rent rebate for the period during which his telephone service was disconnected. We consider that in addition, compensation of Rs.750/- would serve justice to the complainant.<br /> 7. In the result complaint allowed. We order the following:- <br /> (i) Opposite party shall give telephone rent rebate to the complainant <br /> for the period from 27-4-06 to 12-5-06. <br /> (ii) Opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven <br /> hundred and fifty only) to the complainant. <br /> (iii) Time limit for compliance of the order is fixed as one month <br /> from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> (iv) We make no order as to costs.<br /> Dated this 27th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3<br /> Ext.A1 : Copy of the receipt for Rs.429/- remitted by complainant at <br /> Grama Panchayat, Mankada.<br /> Ext.A2 : Telephone bill for Rs.357/- for the Month of March issued by<br /> opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A3 : Postal receipt for Rs.357/- as telephone charge remitted by <br /> complainant at Post Office, Kadannamanna. <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1<br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the payment particulars from Post Office,<br /> Kadannamanna.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />