KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM F.A. No.623/09 JUDGMENT DATED : 18.03.2010 PRESENT:- SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER N.Viswambharan, : APPELLANT Viswavihar, U.P.S.JN., Edamon.P.O. – 691307, Punalur. Vs 1. The General Manager, BSNL.Kollam. 2. SDO (T) : RESPONDENTS BSNL Punalur, N.S.S.Building, Near P.O. Punalur. 3. A.O. (TR), BSNL, Office of the GM, BSNL Kollam. JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 06.10.09 of CDRF, Kollam in C.C.482/04 whereby the Forum dismissed the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a consumer of opposite party and his telephone became defective and complaints were given to the opposite parties several times. But they failed to rectify the defects in the equipment and finally it was taken by the opposite party and it was reinstalled later. But within a short period the said equipment also became defective. The matter was reported asking for repair / rectification or replacement by a serviceable set. Even after repeated requests no reply was given. Thereafter he sent notice but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Hence he filed complaint before the Forum. 3. We heard the appellant who appear in person and the counsel for the respondents. Though the complainant would argue that his complaint is maintainable before the Forum as per Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 we find the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect while passing the judgment in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and another reported in III 2009 CPJ 71 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has unequivocally observed that the consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with regard to any dispute concerning any telephone line appliance or apparatus. It is noted that the dispute of the complaint is with regard to the apparatus issued by the opposite parties/BSNL. In the aforesaid reported decision it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provisions of Sec.7B of Indian Telegraph Act regarding arbitration procedure prescribed therein is to be invoked with respect to the disputes concerning any telegraph line, appliances or apparatus arises between the telephone authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliances or apparatus is, or has been provided. In the light of the aforesaid decision (Supra) rendered by the apex court the Forum below had dismissed the complaint as it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. In the circumstances, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for. In the result, the impugned order dated06.10.2009 of CDRF, Kollam in C.C.No.482/04 is confirmed. The parties are directed to refer the matter for arbitration. The complainant is entitled to get the period spent for this proceedings excluded from the limitation period for initiating appropriate proceedings before the arbitrator. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Kb. | 
