KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL 75/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 5.11.2009 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1.The Principal General Manager, : APPELLANTS BSNL Bhavan, Kalathiparambil Road, Ernakulam. 2. The Accounts Officer, TR-2, Office of CAO TR, TRA Unit, Jyothi Super Bazar Buildings, Thodupuzha. (By Adv.G.S.Prakash) vs. E.V.Paulose, : RESPONDENT Advocate, Edayathu House, Muvattupuzha. (By Adv.Tom Joseph) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in the file of CC.389/06. The appellants are the opposite parties who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the Forum below. This is a dispute between the BSNL consumer and the Principal General Manager, BSNL, Ernakulam and the Accounts Officer, TRA unit, Thodupuzha. The consumer complainant challenged the illegal disconnection and alleged that it was a disconnection and had the amount paid it deficiency in service according to provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties/respondent appeared on notice issued by the Forum below and filed their written version before the Forum below. According to the BSNL/opposite parties the complainant did not remit the bill for call charges in time and so the disconnection was made and they denied that they have not committed any deficiency in service on their part. The Forum below conducted a trial and the complainant produced 2 documents and it marked as Ext.A1 and A2 and the complainant he himself deposed before the Forum below as witness PW1 and the opposite parties side Jessy George examined as DW1 and marked Ext.B1 and B2. The Forum below found that there is a deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties and Forum below directed the opposite parties to pay the complainant the compensation of Rs.1500/- and cost of Rs.500/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of order. The appellants prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day this appeal came before this Commission heard. According to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal 7687/04 dated 1.9.09. There is a Rule in the Indian Telegraph Act(Rule No.413) as per this rule all services relating to telephone are only subjected to Telegraph Rules that a telephone connection was disconnected by the Telegraph authority for default of payment if any under Rule 443 of the Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that “Section 7B Arbitration of Disputes – (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning my telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section”. In the dispute arised for consideration is nothing but a disconnection of his BSNL connection issued by the opposite parties. The complainant’s case is that he paid the amount on 21.8.06. (Bill dated 7/5/06 amount Rs.1,753/-). The complainant alleged that the appellant disconnected his telephone even after the payment of his bill in time. There is no doubt that this is a dispute purely involved in connection with the delay for issue of bill. As per the above said decision of the Supreme Court it is not coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. According to this settled position of the Supreme Court the consumer Fora, Commissions are not having any jurisdiction to entertain any dispute related with the telephone services of telegraph service. In the result the appeal is disposed and set aside the order passed by the Forum below. The respondent/complainant is directed to approach the BSNL to appoint an arbitrator and the appellant/opposite party is also direct to comply with the rules of Indian Telegraph Act. This appeal disposed of accordingly. Both parties are directed to suffer their costs. The points of the appeal answered accordingly. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
