IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 388/09 DATED 18.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant H.Rathan Chand Purohith,<br /> S/o Late Harjiji Purohith, No.1322, L-68-3, K.R.Hospital Road, Mysore-570001.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. Shivakumar, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Manager, <br /> Bharti Airtel Ltd., <br /> J.L.B Road, Lakshmipuram, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. B.J.Mahesh, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 22.10.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 26.11.2009<br /> Date of order : 18.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 22 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction to reinstall land line phone and also to direct the opposite party to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, on 27.07.2009, the opposite party collected in all Rs.1,000/- from the complainant for new telephone connection and allotted phone No.0821-4282578. On 03.08.2009, under the guise of repairs, the instrument was taken away. Despite the request and the notice, the opposite party has not reinstalled the phone connection. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version, the opposite party denied the telephone number referred to in the complaint was allotted to the complainant. The Number allotted was 4280172. Further it is contended that, the complainant had availed telephone No.5269825 in the year 2004 and was in arrears of Rs.6,884/-. Also, complainant had availed land line connection for PCO coin box with No.4264543, which was disconnected in the year 2006, as complainant failed to arrears to the tune of Rs.2,190/-. Other allegations made in the complaint are denied. It is contend that, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, the complaint is not maintainable. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit, whereas for the opposite party one Prasanth has filed an affidavit. A counter affidavit is filed by the complainant stating that, he was not in arrears and further it is stated, the ruling relied upon is not applicable to the present case. Certain documents are produced. We have heard the learned advocates for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that the complaint is maintainable and further, that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Advocate for the opposite party in support of the contention that the complaint is not maintainable, has produced copy of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission in appeal No.226/09 dated 27.10.2009. The Hon’ble State Commission with reference to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7687/04 has held that, when there is special remedy provided under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the C.P.Act is by implication barred. Also, it is observed that, 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.<br /> <br /> 8. Learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, the order of the Hon’ble State Commission as well as of the Hon’ble Apex Court pertains to non-payment of bills, but in the case on hand, does not pertains to payment of bill and hence, the ruling is not applicable. But, considering the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act as well as Rules there under and the judgement of the Apex Court, it is clear that, because special remedy is provided under the Indian Telegraph Act, the dispute between customer and the telegraph authority is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Hence, the contention of the learned advocate that, the ruling will not application to the facts of the case on hand, cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 9. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble State Commission are binding on this Forum and hence, we are of the considered opinion that, the complaint is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 10. Since, we found that, the complaint is not maintainable, we are of the opinion that entering into merits of the case and consideration of the allegations made in the complaint and the contentions of the opposite party in the version, is not necessary.<br /> <br /> 11. Accordingly, our finding on the above point is in negative. <br /> <br /> 12. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 18th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />