By Smt. Rajani.P.S, Member: The complainant is a mobile phone consumer of the first respondent having No.9446302389 as per the advertisement published. She is again lured to take a GPRS connection through the brochure published and circulated by the first respondent and as per the above said brochure apart from the activation charges of Rs.50/- the monthly rental charges for unlimited GPRS services has been shown as Rs.349/- only under option II and Rs.199/- for the limited free usage upto 5 MB under option I. The complainant opted the option I. On 1.2.06 the complainant received an invoice for Rs.18,383.00 issued by the 2nd respondent payable on or before 24.2.2006 quite shockingly and thereafter she has stopped the consumption of the GPRs services and also the phone services. Thereafter also she has received another invoice dated 1.4.2006 for Rs.29,397/- payable on or before 20.4.2006 and again for Rs.29,975/- dated 2.7.06. After receipt of the first invoice itself the complainant has approached the respondents and they have responded in a humiliating way to the complainant and compelled her to pay the amount as per the invoices. Again on 14.8.06 she received a letter from the Chief General Manager, Thiruvananthapuram calling upon her to pay the amount of Rs.29,733/- on or before 25.8.06 failing which she would be held liable for all legal consequences she send a reply dated 15.9.06 to that notice stating the true and real set of facts. Now it is learnt by the complainant that the respondents are about to initiate legal proceedings against the complainant including the revenue recovery proceedings. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter of respondents is that this complaint is not maintainable before the Forum in the light of the interim stay order dated 23.11.2004 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No.18409/2003 against the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 14.2.2003 in WA 535/2002(R.I). The allegations and averments in the complaint are not correct. It is not maintainable in law or on merit. It is true that the complaint has been provided with a mobile connection with effect from 5.12.2005 under Plan 100 Scheme and she has been enjoying the services of the phone without interruption till disconnection dated 15.5.06 for valid reasons. Further with effect from 5.1.2006 she has been provided General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) on her application preferring option No.1. The complainant has not fully explained the facts in respect of the said mobile connection and excessive use of the facilities. Material facts have been intentionally suppressed to suit the convenience of the complainant. The complainant had opted the option No.1 of the GPRS service with a monthly rental of Rs.199/-. As per this option/package the free GPRS usage permitted was only upto 5 MB only and BSNL had to char4ge on volume basis at the rate of 10 Ps. per kilo byte for every usage exceeding 5 MB. An examination of the detailed bill of the disputed invoices of complainant clearly shows that the complainant had been using her mobile phone as a modem for accessing the Internet through her computer/laptop. Since the computer/laptop was being used for browsing through complainant’s cell one GSM connection the volume of usage substantially increased as reflected in the detailed bills. The complainant is bound to pay BSNL for the services rendered. The detailed print out of calls show the extensive usage of GPRS facility. In spite of issuing detailed reply on 4.11.2006 after verifying the basic documents and report from CSR, TSR she is evading payment. Any reduction of charges as demanded by the complainant will lead to heavy losses and damages for the respondent. Hence dismiss. 3. Now the question to be decided is the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum. 4. So we heard the maintainability in the light of new Supreme Court ruling. According to the respondents, the complaint is not maintainable since the telephone bill is under challenge. As per Section 7B of the Telegraph Act when there is a special remedy, remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Then the question is when there is a special remedy under S.7B of Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bills remedy under Consumer Protection Act, if can be invoked? The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when there is a special remedy provided under Section 7B of Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills then remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. The present case is filed to cancel the bill issued by respondents with a consequential prayer against disconnection. So the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. 5. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is directed to approach the Arbitration Authority within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the respondents shall not take any coercive steps during the period. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 25th day of March 2010.
| | HONORABLE Rajani P.S., Member | HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S, Member | | 
