This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 30.09.2019 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur in CC No 4 of 2019. The fact of the case in brief is that the Complainant/Appellant has adopted Post Paid BSNL Mobile connection under Raiganj Telephone Exchange Bearing Mobile Connection No 9434954385. The further case is that he had deposited security amount of Rs. 5,500/- in the month of October 2018 for availing ISD and International Roaming facilities and availed such facility previously time to time when he traveled to abroad like France and he paid maximum bill amount of Rs. 1,500/- Per Month. Subsequently, the Complainant/ Appellant visited Bangladesh from 24.10.2018 to 29.10.2018 and before leaving Bangladesh he availed of the international roaming facility but the BSNL/O.P did not sent any text massage or any mobile massage informing the said facilities or packages available for him. The Complainant was understanding regarding International Roaming Tariff to be based on his previous experience as well as various packages/concessional tariff prevailed by the O.P BSNL and also other service providers of mobile company in India. He expected a same charge of tariff in INR for India when roaming in Bangladesh. The O.P had taken the security deposit for allowing ISD and International Roaming facility. The Complainant used the International Roaming Service during the period of Bangladesh staying and considered that if there was any excess crossing the outer limit of security deposit amount or credit limit and at that point the Complainant’s roaming services should have been disconnected. But O.P/BSNL with a malafied intention did not disconnect the international roaming service with a view to extract large amount from an innocent consumer to the tune of Rs. 1,74,343/-. Whereas, the Bangladesh Telecom Regulatory Commission fix TK. 0.45(INR=0.38) per minute as the uniform minimum call rate for all mobile phone operators. Whereas, the O.P/BSNL in the plea and guise of international roaming oversees operator charges imposed an exorbitant bill amounting to Rs. 1,74,343/-. The O.P either did not feel the need to intimate their subscriber through SMS and email about the international roaming tariff and the O.P intentionally did not stop service during international roaming from 24^th to 29^th October 2018 when accumulated charges was exceeded the total security amount. Further, case of the Complainant is that the BSNL Authority had defrauded him by creating a false and exorbitant bill amounting to Rs. 1,74,343/- where the security deposits of Rs. 5,550/- was the outer limit of availing the roaming facilities on the part of the Complainant. The BSNL intentionally has harassed him by sending a improper exorbitant bill and for that reason the instant Consumer Complaint was registered. The Opposite Parties have contested the said Consumer Complaint after receiving the notice in due course and contended inter-alia that as per prayer of the Complainant the mobile phone No 943454358 of Complainant was activated with international roaming service on 23.08.2018 and text massage was sent to him through the said mobile phone regarding the roaming facility as per BSNL cooperate guideline and the billing of mobile usages is computerized process all over the globe and was done automatically based upon the usages and tariff and the said bill was a system generated and as per call details recorded the tariff charge in the bill in this case was Rs. 1,74,344/- comprised in five segments. So, the frivolous Consumer Complaint should be dismissed. Ld. Forum after the recording evidences, after hearing the argument, came into conclusion that any disputed regarding any telephone bill is not maintainable in the Forum as because it is to be disposed of according to the provisions of Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that order of Ld. Forum suffers from irregularity and not vested in law, that the observation of Ld. Forum was baseless, improper and suffers from gross errors. The appeal was registered in due course and notice was sent to the respondent who has contested the case through Ld. Advocate Mr. R. Banik. The appellant conducts the hearing personally. Appeal was heard in presence of both sides.

Decision with reasons

Admittedly, the appellant is a bonafide customer of BSNL having mobile line who used to enjoy the roaming facilities whenever he visited abroad. The question arises in this case is that while he visited to Bangladesh for his personal trip, he availed the roaming overseas facilities by depositing the security money and he was anticipated that as per international rate of tariffs and usage charges the outer limit of security deposit in any way could not be exceeded and as soon the outer limit of security deposit exceeded the limit the overseas roaming facilities should have to be stopped. But unfortunately, the BSNL Authority has drawn a bill for such usage charges to the tune of Rs. 1,74,340/- in the month of October 2018 which was exaggerated one and could not follow the international roaming facilities and the BSNL Authority has itself infringed the own guidelines for mobile subscriber. The said guidelines speak that in the case of international roaming facility the security limit of subscriber is based on the amount of a security deposit. Usage beyond credit limit during the billing period to the result in this connection. According to the appellant the BSNL Authority in spite of such existence of specific guidelines intentionally did not stop the roaming facilities as soon the usage charges exceeded the credit limit of Rs. 5,500/- and in this way has harassed a bonafide Consumer and for that reason he approached the Consumer Protection Authority for redressal of his grievances. At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 through Ld. Counsel R. Banik mentions that as per Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 7687 of 2004 dated 01.09.2009 reported in AIR 2010 where it was settled that special law always overrides the general law and it was further held where there is a special remedy provided in Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bills then the remedy under the C.P Act is by implication barred. He further mentioned that the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act came into force since 1997 where the provision of the depute arbitrator to settle the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court of law. He further argued that the Hon’ble National Commission in a case reported 1995(2) CPJ 230 was pleased to hold that Section 3 of the C.P Act only prescribes additional remedy for the redressal of a grievances but if the remedy is barred under any other special law, no relief can be granted under the 1986 Act. After appreciating the valuable argument canvassed before us, the Commission finds that as per provisions of Section 7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act and as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manger Vs M. Krishnan and Others mentioned above, any disputes relating to telephone bills cannot be agitated before a Consumer Fora and such disputes shall be determined by an arbitrator and such arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government and award of the arbitrator shall be conclusive. So, in our view, the dispute raised in the bill should be referred to the arbitrator as per provisions of Section 7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act and BSNL Authority as an undertaking of Government of India can appoint an arbitrator to determine the dispute of bill who shall hear both parties to the case and shall determine the faith and status of the bill and the Consumer Forum has nothing to do in this regard. So, the appeal devoids of any merit but simultaneously there is some sort of grievances against the BSNL Authority on the part of the bonafide Consumer like the appellant and such grievances should be settled in a right manner.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without cost. That the Judgement and Final Order dated 30.09.2019 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur in CC No 4 of 2019 hereby confirmed with a direction to the BSNL Authority to refer the instant dispute to an arbitrator appointed by them as per provisions of rules and regulations and the arbitrator appointed in this connection shall go into merit in the disputed telephone bill  and hear the both sides and adjudicate the matter according to provisions of law and both sides of the case should be abided with the final verdict of the arbitrator. The process of appointment an arbitrator and refers the matter to the arbitrator to be completed by the BSNL Authority within two months from the date or order, failing which the appellant shall have the liberty to reagitate the matter before the Competent Authority for getting proper reliefs. Till the final adjudication of the arbitrator the BSNL Authority shall not compel the appellant to make payment of the disputed bill amount.

Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and copy of the same to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur through email.