By G.Yadunadhan, President:
The case of the complainant is that Complainant had land phone connection holding the No.2235355 under the Puthuppadi Telephone Exchange. The complainant is holding and using the land phone without any interruption from the date of installation. The opposite parties gave telephone connection to the complainant through Optical Fibre Cable system, which is known to be one of the best system of cable connections. The complainant is a Senior Citizen without the help of telephone, he can not contact outside puthuppadi village. His children and relatives are residing in different parts of India including abroad. The said land phone become dead in connection with the construction of Road. The above said incident timely intimated to the opposite parties, opposite parties made to believe the complainant that the telephone will be active after the road construction. Opposite parties gave a temporary wireless connection to the complainant . It was also not working properly. This fact intimated to the opposite parties, but opposite parties not responded so far . This amounts to deficiency of service on the side of opposite parties. Therefore complainant is seeking relief against opposite party directing them to restore the land phone connection bearing No.2235355 of Puthupadi exchange and also pay a compensation of Rs.25000/-.
No notice was sent to the opposite parties since the opposite parties are under the purview of BSNL. The case is posted for hearing on maintainability. Heard the complainant in detail.
Points for consideration –
1) whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties.
Complainant was heard in detail regarding the maintainability. Since the opposite parties are the purview of BSNL, and the fact in brief complainant got installed a telephone connection at his residence holding No.2235355 underthe Puthuppadi Exchange. It was alleged that might from the installation of telephone at his residence. The complainant faced recurring problems like net work failure after many complaints, opposite parties handed over the WPC that was also defective.
However the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the provision of C.P.Act can be invoked irrespective of any other statute dealing with the same matter as remedy under the C.P.Act is an additional and special remedy. According to this For a division of Hon’ble Supreme Court General Manager Vs M.Krishnan & another decided on01.09.2009 and reported 2009 CTJ 1062(SC). There is implied bar to invoke the provision of Consumer Protection Act in view of section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act and as such the Fora under the C.P.Act 1986 have no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter relating to the Telecommunication services. Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. Krishnan and another under the Consumer protection Act 1986 have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matter. Complainant to approach appropriate forum or Court in accordance with law. Under these circumstances complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this is the 21st day of November 2011.
Date of filing:03.08.2011.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
