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. 39/ 2000 WEDNESDAY THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011. M. M. Industries, Rep. by its Proprietor, M. Marudhachalam, No.2, Yadava Street, Sankaranpalayam, Vellore-1. Vellore District. … Complainant. -Vs – 1. The General Manager, Telecom, Vellore-1 2. The Accounts Officer, TRA, O/O General Mangaer, Telecom, Vellore-1. … Opposite parties. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 5.12..2010, in the presence of Thiru. A. Thanikachalam, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. T.N.K.Selvaraj, Advocate for the opposite parties, 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 the subscriber for telephone no. vlr 227929. The complainant has been regular in payment of the telephone bills from the date of its commencement and never committed default in payment of bills at any point of time. Whileso the 2nd opposite party who is the subordinate office of the 1st opposite party has disconnected the above telephone number VLR 227929 without notice on 28.8.1999. The complainant received a lawyer’s notice dated nil stating that my client was due a sum of Rs.25,863/- for the bill dated 25.6.97. The complainant has issued a reply notice dated 2.6.99 denying the claim. The facts remain that every two months the amount of the telephone bill would never exceed Rs1500/-. The bill dated 1.6.97 was for Rs.1000/-. The bills for subsequent months was even below Rs.1000/-. The said telephone was disconnected only on 28.8.99 without any basis. The complainant did not receive the bill dated 25.6.97 for Rs.25863/-. It came to know of the said bill only through the said lawyer’s notice dated nil. The STD facility was barred with effect from 28.2.1997 vide memo No. SDE CTD/VLR/96-97/394 dated 6.3.1997 issued by the Sub Divisional Engineer, Computer and Test Desk, vellore-1. Thus from 1.3.1997 onwards the complainant never used STD facility. After barring of STD facility the complainant’s bill never exceed Rs.1000/- at any point of time. Thus it is very clear that the claim for the bill dated 25.6.97 is false and baseless. Now the present claim for Rs.25,655/- is false and baseless. For the same bill amount to Rs.25863/- the opposite parties on 26.2.98 had disconnected the above telephone No.27929. The complainant made a complaint to the 1st opposite party and also to the Director of Finance, Telecom, Vellore and on enquiry the crime was found false and baseless and the reconnection of the said telephone was given to the complainant on the next day. Whileso again for the same claim now the opposite parties has given the notice No.TR/VLR/TARGET/99-2000/4 dated at Vellore 24.2.2000 demanding the payment of Rs.25,655/- and threatened to disconnect all the associated telephone numbers. Therefore the complainant filled a complaint before the “ADALAT” Telecom Department on 16.9.1999. The officer’s incharge of “ADALAT” viz. commercial officer had noted that the complaint was belated and hence could not be taken up in the “ADALAT” vide his letter dated 20.9.99. The M.M Industry is a very small unit manufacturing Wax Candles and Wax Toys which are marketed in a very small scale and the consumers are only locals. Therefore there is no need for the complainant to use the telephone extensively. Only for limited purposes the complainant made use of telephone. Therefore there is no scope at all for consumption of so many telephone calls to the tune of Rs.25,863/- for a period of 25 days i.e. from 1.6.97 to 25.6.97 which works out at Rs.1000/- and more on an average per day. Therefore the service rendered by the opposite parties is defective and there is deficiency in service and also in calculation of bills. The complainant submits that it paid the amount of Rs.354/- on 23.4.99 for the bill dated 1.4.99. Likewise the complainant paid Rs.257/- on 28.6.99 for the bill dated 1.6.99 and the paid Rs.79/- on 14.7.99 for the bill dated 11.6.99. thus there is no arrears of telephone bill outstanding against the complainant. 2. On account of defective service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony, loss of income and damages as detailed below: a) Loss of income Rs 6000.00 b) Damages suffered for mental agony Rs 50000.00 ----------------- Rs 56000.00 ----------------- The complainant therefore prays that this Hon’ble forum may be pleased to:- a) Pass orders for reconnection of the telephone no.27929 (New no.227929) of the complainant. b) Pass an award for a sum of Rs.56,000/- with the future interest and cost. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite parties are as follows: This opposite party does not admit any of the averments contained in the complaint, save those that are specifically admitted hereunder and the complainant is put to strict proof of them all. It is true that the complainant was provided with a telephone with STD facility for running his business in the name of M.M. Industries. The telephone was installed on 10-07-1996. But t is not correct to state that the complainant never committed default in payment of bills at any point of time. The complainant was issued the first bill on 1-8-1996 for Rs 439.00 with the following details:- Rent from 10-7-1996 to 31-10-1996 Rs 370.00 Local call charges upto 15-7-1996 Rs 10.40 S.T. Rs 59.00 Total Rs 439.00 This amount was adjusted against excess credit available with the Department viz.Rs.1000.00 and the balance of Rs.561.00 was carried over. Subsequently the complainant was issued the bill dated 1-10-1996 for Rs.18043.00. Then the bill dated 1-12-1996 for Rs.8461.00 was issued to the complainant. These bills were issued when the STD facility was available. The complainant did not pay both the bills. After adjusting the excess credit available with the Department viz. Rs.561.00, the complainant was due to pay Rs.25863.00 which was given as a single bill on 25-6-1997 for convenience. The complainant got the STD disconnected on 28-2-1997. The bills issued after the said date were around Rs.1000.00 per bi-monthly. This complainant was a defaulter to the tune of Rs.25863.00, his telephone no.227929 was disconnected after issue of notice as well as telephonic reminder. The bill dated 25-61997 was only consolidated of the earlier outstanding bills adjusting the credit available with the department. The complainant failed to pay the bills dated 1-101996 and 1-12-1996 as stated supra. The fact of non payment of the said bills was found out when the accounts were checked in June 1997 and then a notice was issued to the complainant demanding payment of the said amounts. Thereafter also the complainant did not comply with the demand for payment of the said 2 bills. Therefore in August 1999, the complainant’s telephone was disconnected for non payment of those 2 bills. Again after checking the accounts, the Department came to know that the dues were not settled by the complainant and hence another notice dated 24.2.2000 was sent to the complainant. Thus the complainant has been in default of Rs.25863.00 from 1997 onwards. The complainant is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount form the date of default till payment as per the provisions of the sale of Goods Act. As per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Rules, Rule 443 the Department is entitled to disconnect the telephone or telephones of any subscriber who is in default without any notices. But in the case of the complainant, numbers of reminders were sent to the complainant and only after coming to know that the complainant had no mind to pay, the department disconnected his telephone. There was absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the Department. The complainant is not entitled for any relief muchless any compensation. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the above compliant with compensatory costs under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. 3. 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?. 4. Ex.A1 to ExA25 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 5. POINT NO. (a) & (b): The Learned counsel for the opposite parties brought to the notice to this Forum the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2009)8 Supreme Court cases 481 General Manger Telecom ..Vs.. K. Krishnan & Another. In this ruling it has been held that in view of Sec.7-B of the Telegraph Act, there is an implead bar, invoke Consumer Protection Act, thereby, outing the jurisdiction of this Forum. 6. The relevant observations in the Judgement reads “in our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Sec.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. 7. Article 141 of Constitution of India mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts, within the territory of India which includes the Tribunals and Consumer Foras. 8. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 January 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 6.3.97 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A2- 1.2.97 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A3- 1.4.97 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A4- 1.6.97 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A5- 1.8.97 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A6- 1.10.97 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A7- 1.12.97 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A8- 1.2.98 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A9- 1.4.98 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A10-1.6.98 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A11- 1.8.98 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A12- 1.10.98 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A13-1.12.98 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A14- 1.2.98 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A15- 1.4.98 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A16- 1.6.99 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A17- 11.6.99 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A18- 16.9.99 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A19- 20.9.99 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.A20- -- - X-copy of legal notice. Ex.A21- 2.6.98 - X-copy of reply notice. Ex.A22- 24.2.00 - X-copy of letter from the opposite party. Ex.A23- 24.2.00 - X-copy of letter from the opposite party. Ex.A24- 11.9.95 - X-copy of Permanent Registration Certificate. Ex.A25- 2.2.05 - X-copy of Telephone bill. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- 25.6.97 - X-copy of Telephone bill. Ex.B2- 25.6.97 - X-copy of Telephone Bill. Ex.B3- 24.9.04 - X-copy of Proceedings of Commercial Division, BSNL, New Delhi. Ex.B4- 8.9.04 - X-copy of Circular. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
