KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.575/2009

JUDGMENT DATED: 14.09.2010

PRESENT:-

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU          :    PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR     :    MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.     Divisional Manager,

BSNL, Kannur.

2.     Assistant Engineer, Aralam Telephone Exchange,

Valayankode P.O., Velimanam.

3.     Divisional Engineer,

Telecom, BSNL,

Mattannur P.O., Mattannur    

                                     (Rep. by Adv. M/s. Mathews K. Philip.)

                                       Vs

RESPONDENT

C.K. Thomas,

S/o Kuruvila, Chettimattathil House,

Kundumangode P.O.,Keezhpally – 670 704

JUDGMENT

SHRI.  S. CHANDRAMOHAN  NAIR        :    MEMBER

          The order dated 22.09.2009 in C.C. 112/2006 of CDRF, Kannur, is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to give telephone connection to the complainant along with Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and costs within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

          The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he had applied for shifting of his residence telephone connection to a new house in another telephone exchange and that though he had applied for the same, the opposite parties  failed in giving a land connection and informed that they were ready to give a wireless connection.  The complainant’s case was that there was no electric connection in the new house and so he demanded the land connection itself.  The further case of the complainant was that the appellant had given two land phone connections over looking the priority and  alleging deficiency  of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to give him land connection along with compensation and costs. 

The opposite parties in their written version contended that there was no feasibility of giving land  phone connection to the new house of the complainant and they were ready to give him WLL Connection and the fact was informed to the complainant.  It was also submitted that as soon as the complainant had received electric connection, he was informed that the opposite parties were ready to give him the WLL connection.

          In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellants argued before us that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum below as Section. 7B of the Telegraph Act  forbids  the consumer Forum to entertain disputes concerning telephone line appliances or apparatus between the telegraph authority and the beneficiaries.  He has also relied  on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telegraph Vs. M. Krishnan and another (2009 CTJ 1062 Supreme Court CP) wherein it is held that Section 7B of the Telegraph Act. Comes into play in the event of a dispute arises between  the telegraph authority and the person who had obtain the line,  appliances or apparatus for his use.  He  has  also argued before us that order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside.

          The short question that is to be considered by us is whether the present complaint and order there from are sustainable in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court cited supra.  There is no doubt that the complainant has grievances regarding the shifting of his telephone connection to his new house.  The opposite parties /appellants would say that they had some difficulties in giving land phone connection itself to the complainant.  From the facts and circumstances we find that as the dispute is with regard to the shifting of an apparatus and the feasibility of lines etc., it is clear that the said dispute falls under Section 7 B of the Telegraph Act.   Under Section 7 B, the complainant is expected to approach the arbitrator appointed under the telegraph Act.   In the circumstances the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below is set aside.   However the complainant is at liberty to approach the arbitrator constituted under Section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 1885 for getting his grievances redressed. 

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order dated 22.09.2009 in C.C. 112/2006 of CDRF, Kannur is set aside.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal there is no order as to costs.

                         S. CHANDRAMOHAN  NAIR        :    MEMBER

                           JUSTICE.K.R.UDAYABHANU   :    PRESIDENT