Date of Filing:08.04.2010<br /> Date of Order: 14.07.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 14TH DAY OF JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 779 OF 2010<br /> <br /> Savitha Jagadish B.M.<br /> No. 168, 2nd Cross, 2nd Floor<br /> Thayappa Garden, D.C. Road<br /> Bilekanalli, Bangalore 560 076 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> BSNL South Division<br /> Yadeyure Circle<br /> Jayanagar 7th Block<br /> Bangalore <br /> Rep. by its Area Manager Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the opposite party to cancel the telephone and Broadband connection and refund deposit amount of Rs. 500/- and modem deposit of Rs. 1,500/-. <br /> 2. The opposite party has filed defence version stating that complaint is false. Complainant is running travel business. Therefore, she is not ‘Consumer’ under the Act. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Sum of Rs. 320/- has been refunded through cheque to the complainant after deducting outstanding amount of Rs. 481/- for the month of August 2009 and Rs. 200/- towards instrument charges from advance amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The minimum deposit of Rs. 500/- has been adjusted in 14.03.2009 bill. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as per the Supreme Court Judgement in Civil Appeal No. 7687/2004 in General Manager Vs M. Krishna & another any dispute pertaining to telephone bills, Apparatus will have to be settled by Arbitration & the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. Hence, opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of the judgement of Supreme Court?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that complaint is not maintainable and Consumer Forum will be having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against opposite party. For that he has produced copy of Supreme Court deciding in Appeal No. 7687/2004 decided on 01.09.2009 in General Manager, Telecom Vs M. Krishnan and another. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 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. Therefore, present complaint filed by the complainant against opposite party is not maintainable before this forum. Therefore, in view of the decision of Supreme Court the complaint deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 14TH DAY OF JULY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />