D.o.F:01/8/09

D.o.O:21/4/2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                 CC.175/09

                        Dated this, the 21st  day of April 2010.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                   : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI               : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI     : MEMBER

Rajesh Kumar,                                               : complainant

S/o T.K.Kunhambu,

R/inThiyadukkam House,

Irriyanni Po,Kasaragod.

(Adv.Benny Jose,Kasaragod)

1.The General Manager, Telecom,                  : Opposite parties

    BSNL ,Thavakkara,Kannur.

2.Divisional Engineer,

   BSNL , Chengala,Kasaragod.

(Adv. Madhavan Malankad,Kasaragod)

                                                         ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ        : PRESIDENT

  The  complaint is  one  claiming  compensation from the opposite parties

on account of the interrupted services of  his telephone line .

2.   During the pendency of the proceedings the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rendered the judgment vide General Manager vs. M.Krishnan and another reported in III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC).  As per the said judgment the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.  In the vide judgment aforementioned the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when there is a special remedy provided in Sec 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.

   With due respect to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court we may say that Hon’ble Supreme Court has not considered TRAI Act 1997 in the decision vide supra. TRAI Act is a special act enacted to protect the interests of service providers as well as the consumers of Telecom Sector which recognizes the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora with respect to settlement of dispute between an individual consumer and a telecom service provider.  Had it been so the Hon’ble Apex court would have deviated from the above decision that seem to shut the doors of consumer Fora.

    However, in view of the decision vide mentioned we direct the opposite parties to refer the matter to an arbitrator within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Failing which they shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- by way of compensation to the complainant.  The complaint is allowed to that extent.

MEMBER                                     MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

eva