BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 10 / 2006 MONDAY THE 5th DAY OF JULY 2010. Kalidas, Navy, S/o. K. Chinnapan, Kamalapuram Village, Morasapalli Post, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. … Complainant. - Vs – The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigham Ltd., Vellore. … Opposite party. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 30.6.2010, in the presence of Thiru. T.Rajasekar,, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. T.N.K.Selvaraj, Advocate for the opposite party, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: . . . . O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is having Telephone connection bearing No.255697 attached to Morasapalli Exchange of opposite party and the telephone having no STD facility and the complainant used to make local calls only that too very meger quantity and he was paying the bills properly till February 2005, due to some problem he could not able to pay the bill for the month of March dt. 7.3.05 which was sent for Rs.542/- only but the opposite party not disconnected the telephone of the complainant and apart from that the opposite party used to allow the complainant to utilize the telephone connection. The arrears amount of Rs.542/- for the month of March had been mentioned in the next bill i.e. May 2005 and asked him to pay that amount. While so in the 1st week of July the opposite party without any prior intimation disconnected the telephone service of this complainant No.255697 when the complaint approached the Accounts Officer of the opposite party at Vellore he was advised to clear the old dues first then only reconnection will be provide to him. The complainant immediately on 13.9.05 paid the two old bill dt. 7.3.05 for Rs.542/- and 7.5.05 for Rs.269/- and get receipt for the same. As per the assurance given by the opposite party he cleared dues and he was under impression that his telephone will start to function again, but his shock sand surprise reconnection was not given to his telephone. . The complainant having no other option on 13.10.05 sent a telegram to the opposite party stating entire facts and asked him for immediate reconnection as one month passed even after payment of bill dues. 2. Even after receipt of the telegram the opposite party did not take any steps to given reconnection of telephone of the complainant having no other option again on 22.10.05 sent another telegram asking the opposite party to give reconnection of his telephone immediately the opposite party received the same but for that also he did not give neither reply or take steps to give reconnection to the complainant’s telephone. He issued legal notice through his advocate on 17.2.05 asking to give immediate reconnection of telephone. He prayed for directing the opposite party to give immediate reconnection of telephone of the complainant bearing No.255697 and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony loss and sufferings and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is as follows: The complaint seeking an order, directing the opposite party to given immediate reconnection of the telephone connection No.255697 to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony, loss, suffering etc., another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of the proceedings and to waive the rent for the entire non-function period etc., is not sustainable either in law or on facts of the case. The opposite party denies all the allegations made in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the complainant to strict proof of each and every allegations. It is true that the complainant was provided with a telephone connection No.255697 at his Village. A bill dated 7.3.05 for Rs.542/- was sent to the complainant. But he failed to pay the said amount. In fact, the complainant himself has admitted that he had committed default in payment of the bill amount due to some problem at his end. Thereupon, after giving him the time i.e. grace period his telephone MRP 255697 was disconnected on 28.3.05 for non-payment of the bill amount as per the rules. As he was using the telephone from 1.3.05 to 28.3.05 another bill for the subsequent period covering from 1.3.05 to 30.4.05 for a sum of Rs.269/- was issued. As he had not paid the previous bill amount of Rs.542/- the said amount was also included in the subsequent bill dt. 7.5.05. The complainant had not taken any steps to pay the arrears of the bill amount in time. As per the Telephone Manual Volume – XII Part-I, Chapter-II rule 61 (b) and (c ) if a telephone connection remains disconnected for non-payment of bill amount for three months, a closure advise note is to be issued in order to reach the stage of permanent closure. The complainant telephone MRP-255697, also remained disconnected for more than three months. Hence, the telephone wire / cable used for this connection has subsequently been utilized for other connections. It was done only after waiting for three months, as per the rules. Therefore this complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 4. Now the points for consideration are: (a) Whether this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this case? (b) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party? (c) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 5. No documents were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Proof affidavit of the complainant have not been filed and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 6. POINT NO. (a) The complainant has raised disputes in respect of disconnection of his telephone for non-payment of telephone bills amount against the opposite party. 7. The opposite party contended that this complaint is not at all maintainable, and when there is special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Hence this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this case. In this connection the learned counsel for the opposite party relying upon the following Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 2009 (4) CPR 119 (SC) General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan & Anr. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was held in the above case that : “When there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to Telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone Connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of Rules. It is well settled that special law overrides general law. Indian Telegraph Act Sect.7-B Arbitration of disputes reads as under: “S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes:- (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any 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 disputes 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. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-s. (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the disputes and shall not be questioned in any Court”. Rules 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all Services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules. 9. In the present case, the contention of the complainant that the two telephone bill dated 7.3.05 for Rs.542/- and 7.5.05 for Rs.269/- towards arrears amount paid on 13.9.05. Since the complainant failed to pay the said amount in time, his telephone connection was disconnected by opposite party. Therefore it is clear that the disputes between the parties in respect of telephone bills, if any dispute concerning telephone bills or any telegraph line appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line dispute shall be determined by arbitration. Indian Telegraph Rule-413 clearly states that a telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules. Therefore, the contention of the opposite party that, when there is special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this case is acceptable. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case. 10. Taking all the above factors in to consideration and from the averments in the complaint, we have come to the conclusion that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this case. Hence we answer this point (a) & (b) as against the complainant herein. 11. POINT NO; (c) : In view of our findings on point No.(a) & (b) since this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this case, we have come to the conclusion that this complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked by him in this complaint. Hence, we answer this point (c) also as against the complainant herein. 12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 5th day of July 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: .. Nill.. Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1- 28.1.07 - X-copy of the letter by the Sub-Divisional Engineer. Ex.B2- 22.9.05 - X-copy of the Feasibility Report. Ex.B3- -- - X-copy of Telecom Manual. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. | 
