Complaint filed on: 20-04-2010<br /> Disposed on: 12-08-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.887/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 12th AUGUST 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> M/s. Sunvik Steels Pvt. Ltd,<br /> C-1304, 13th Floor, <br /> Platinum City, Yeswanthpur, <br /> Bangalore-22<br /> Represented by: Managing Director, <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite party: - <br /> AIRTEL Address, Bharti Airtel Ltd,<br /> # 6 & 7, Classic Terrace, <br /> 60 ft Main Road, G Block, <br /> Sahakaranagar, Bangalore-92<br /> Represented by <br /> Mr.Vinay.B.C.-Asst. Manager-B2B voice <br /> (9845562640)<br /> Mr.Santosh Naik, Channel Manager,<br /> (9740990815)<br /> Mr.Sunil KM-Zonal manager-B2B<br /> (9845614357)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party with his grievance that, he is running an integrated steel plant. In order to improve his business he decided to change their telecom service from old system to new PRI system, issued purchase order to OP for installing new PRI system in their head office. OP accepted his order on 28-1-2010. A new PRI system was installed. Then he noticed some shortfall in the functioning and he informed OP. OP admitting the problem requested three days time to rectify, but OP did not respond to rectify or to replace the PRI system. Then the system stopped functioning, stopped all original telephone lines and even the broad brand internet facility and when the OP did not rectify, he requested him to install the old PRI system. But OP has not responded and therefore alleged that on account of this deficiency in his service of the OP, he has suffered loss of Rs.15,00,000/- and therefore prayed for a direction to the OP to perform his job, as per the terms of the purchase order and to compensate the loss and to award damages and costs. <br /> <br /> 2. OP though served with the notice of this complaint has remained absent and is set exparte. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. The complainant has produced copies of bills and copies of certain correspondences. We have heard the complainant, who is in person and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On going through the complaint allegations and affidavit evidence, it is found that the complainant has come up with his grievance alleging that a new PRI system which is a telecom service system installed in their establishment as per his purchase order had some shortfall in the functioning, as a result his existing telephone line even broad band, internet facilities were all disturbed and when he requested the OP to set right the PRI system or to replace it, they did not do. Thus the OP is deficient in not doing so. The allegations of the complainant are not installing a telecom system or appliances or apparatus and the telegraphic lines. <br /> <br /> 5. In a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 dated 1-9-2009 has held when there is a special remedy provide in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, the complaint cannot be maintained. The finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:<br /> “S.7B Arbitration of disputes:- <br /> (1) Except 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.<br /> (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-s. (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court”.<br /> <br /> 6. In view of the above decision, the complaint is not maintainable and therefore is liable to be dismissed with the result, we pass the following order:<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed and no cost. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 12th August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />