COMPLAINT FILED: 29-04-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 16-12-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 16TH DECEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.975/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.Srinivasan,<br /> No.97/4, Manu Nivas, Maruthi Nagar, Kogilu Road, <br /> Yelahanka,<br /> Bangalore – 560 064.<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Commercial Officer(BSNL),<br /> CustomerService,<br /> Doddaballapure Road,<br /> New Town, Yelehanka, <br /> Bangalore – 560 064.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.H.T.Vasanth Kumar<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay compensation for his sufferings on account of OP non responding his complaint not giving the internet usage statement and not adjusting his deposit towards the bill amount. <br /> 2. In the complaint it is stated that the bill for the month of December’ 2008 from first December to 31st December’ 2008 was sent for Rs.3,664/- in respect of the telephone connection provided to the complainant of telephone Old No.28563656 and new telephone No.28571656. The complainant lodged complaint over telephone for non functioning of telephone as well as internet. As there is no response, on 24 February’ 2009 complainant lodged the written complaint addressed to Commercial Officer and got acknowledgement. For January’ 2009 again he got telephone bill for Rs.1201/- and pending bill for Rs.3,662/-. As there is no response even after lodging complaint for more than a month, the complainant surrendered telephone as well as internet services at customer services telephone exchange on 24-02-2009. The road widening work of Kogilu Road, commenced in December’ 2008 resulting telephone out of order. On account of deputation of BSNL staff to Air show’ 2009 nobody was available for restoring of telephone service as explained by line man. Even after surrendering the telephone and internet service, the complainant got two telephone bills for both old and new telephone for non-functioning from the month of December’2008 to 24-02-2009. A registered complaint was addressed to Assistant General Manager (PR) on 31-03-2009, till today no response emanated from the highest office of BSNL. On 24-02-2009 while surrendering telephone the complainant requested for payment of deposited amount, the same has not been paid. On 14-04-2009 a telephone bill for total sum of Rs.5,730/- was received. Instead of taking steps to rectify the faulty bill, the bill amount has been increasing month by month even after surrendering telephone and internet service. When the telephone itself is surrendered on 24-02-2009 but how till 14-04-2009 internet bill for Rs.827/- has claimed. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. OP on appearance filed version contending that the complaint is false and frivolous and the same is not maintainable. It is submitted that during the month of December, the complainant has made use of the services, as such there was no complaint booked during that month and the bill for the amount of Rs.3,664/- is in order. The bill for the month of January’2009 is Rs.1,201/-, OP has explained and convinced the complainant, the call details of December’ 2008 to January’2009. It is admitted that complainant has surrendered both telephone line and broad band on 24-02-2009. It is contended that due to road widening works commenced during first week of February’2009 by BBMP, under ground cable of BSNL got damaged and for this complainant was recommended rental rebate between 05-02-2009 to 24-02-2009 beyond that complainant has surrendered the telephone on 24-02-2009. Since outstanding bills till date of surrendering was not cleared; hence complainant continued to get the bill. Total outstanding due has not been cleared by the complainant, hence the question of returning deposit amount does not arise. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit to substantiate complaint averments. The Assistant General Manager of OP filed affidavit in support of defence version. On 06-10-2009 the counsel for OP filed memo to dismiss the complaint in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 in respect of similar matter and produced copy of the order. <br /> 5. Arguments on both the sides heard. Point that arise for our consideration is:-<br /> <br /> Whether the dispute arisen <br /> between the parties is amenable <br /> to the jurisdiction of this Forum?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We record our findings in Negative for the following :-<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. The relief claimed by the complainant in this complaint is to award compensation for not responding to his complaint regarding non functioning of telephone service and internet service and not providing the internet usage statement and not adjusting his deposit amount in the outstanding telephone bills. It is contending for the OP that in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & others, in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5631 holding that when there is special remedy provided in Sec-7B of Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bills, the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred, the complaint is not maintainable. As against this the complaint contended that Sec-7B of the Indian Telegraph act is not applicable to the facts of this case as he is claiming compensation for not responding to his complaint with regard to non functioning of telephone as well as internet service and also not providing him the internet usage statement and not adjusting his deposit amount in the outstanding telephone bills.<br /> <br /> 8. In our view for awarding any compensation under the Consumer Protection Act there must be deficiency in service on the part of the OP, to find out that fact we have record the findings whether the telephone bills issued in respect of telephone service provided to the complainant are proper. The matter squarely falls within Sec.7-B of Indian Telegraph Act. Therefore it cannot be said that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above said appeal is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case also the complainant filed complaint regarding disconnection of the telephone on account of non payment of the telephone bills. The District Forum allowed the complaint with a direction to reconnect the telephone connection; to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the writ petition and writ appeal filed in the High Court of Kerala were dismissed. The Appellant preferred appeal before the Supreme Court with special leave, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when there is a special remedy Sec-7B of Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bill; the remedy under C.P. Act is by implications barred. Further it was held that special law over rides the general law. <br /> <br /> 9. The complainant in his written submission stated that even though there is no power to decide on his complaint with regards to excess billing, this Forum has power to deal with deficiency of services. Further it is stated that on receipt of his compliant no action was taken by the BSNL authorities as required by the act and no response was received from them even after 8 months. This forum has power to deal regarding deficiency of service of not responding for his compliant and non reversal of excess billing even AGM/s of the BSNL. It is contended that sec 3 of CP Act provides that the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In our view as Apex Court in the above pronouncement observed that special law over rides general law. Therefore it cannot be said that this forum is having jurisdiction to decide the dispute arisen between the parties. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed holding that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. <br /> <br /> In view of nature of dispute no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 16th day of December 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br /> <br /> <br />