Date of filing : 06-02-2009 Date of order : 26-04-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 44/2009 Dated this, the 26th day of April 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Shankara Gatty.U, S/o.Koragappa Gatty, R/at Kallangadi, Hosamane Kavugoli, } Complainant Chowki, Po.Kudlu, Kasaragod Taluk. (Adv.P.Anantharama, Kasaragod) 1. The General Manager, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd, } Opposite parties Kannur.Po, Kannur.Dt. 2. The Accounts Officer (TR) BSNL, Kasaragod. 3. Ratnakaran.C. S.D.E.(PG) Nodal Officer, Telecommunications, Kannur.Po& Dist. 4. Gomathi Ammal, A.G.P.(PG) Nodal Officer (P.G), Telecommunications, Kannur.Po. (Adv. Madhavan Malankad, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed against the anomaly in collecting the call charges of the telephone subscriber No.232592 provided in the name of complainant. According to complainant the connection is provided under Rural category in February 2002. Later as per notice dated 1-3-2006 the complainant was directed to pay rental charges at the rate applicable of Urban area. So the number of free calls were reduced and the rate of call/unit is increased. The complainant is also directed to pay Rs.5269/- in instalments towards the back arrears. According to complainant the opposite parties had collected Rs.5533.90 up to June 2007 thus paid an excess amount of Rs.264.90. Though the said collection is illegal the opposite parties continued to collect the excess amount in July 2007 onwards also. Therefore a notice was sent claiming the refund of excess Rs.264.90. It was not replied by opposite parties. Hence the complaint seeking an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5530.62 with compensation and costs. 2. According to opposite parties the Census Board of India during it’s survey in the year 2002 has classified the tariffs in the country as under Rural/urban category according to conditions stipulated for each category. The TRAI has decided that the telephone rental is to be determined on the basis of the classification of the place in the census report. The premises of the complainant falls within the Urban category and place of telephone connection provided to the complainant falls within the urban area and hence the rent is revised accordingly. While providing the telephone connection classification of the place was wrongly determined as rural. The mistake was later noticed and accordingly the rental charges in respect of the said telephone connections were revised as per urban category subscriber’s rate. The matter regarding the change in rates of rent was brought to the notice of the complainant well in advance. It was also informed to the complainant that an amount of Rs.5269/- was due from him towards the charges of the revised rent and call charges subsequent to the classification of the area from rural to urban and that the amount will be recovered in early instalments in bills due to be issued. Accordingly the short billed amount of Rs.5269/- is recovered from the complainant in 15 instalments commencing from the bill issued on 5-4-2006 onwards @ 351.27 per bill in 14 bills and Rs.351.22 in the 15th bill dated 5-8-08. No amount other than the said amount of Rs.5269/- is collected from complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part. 3. The complainant filed affidavit and Exts A1 to A42 marked. He was cross-examined by Counsel for opposite parties. No evidence either oral or documentary adduced on the side of opposite parties. Both sides heard. 4. During hearing the counsel for opposite parties produced the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 reported in CDJ 2009 SC 1729. As per that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in view of the 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. 5. With due respect to the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we may say that the Hon’ble Apex Court has not taken into consideration a subsequent special legislation namely TRAI Act 1997 while rendering the above judgment. TRAI Act is a special Act enacted in 1997 to protect the interests of service providers and consumers of the telecom sector. TRAI Act recognizes the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with respect to the settlement of disputes between a telecom service provider and an individual consumer. Had it been considered the Hon’ble Apex Court would have deviated from the judgment mentioned supra. 6. However inview of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court we have no jurisdiction to settle the above consumer dispute and the only option available is to refer the matter to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. Therefore we direct the opposite parties to refer the matter to an arbitrator within one month from the date of copy of order. Failing which opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant by way of compensation. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 25-6-07 Copy of complaint sent by complainant to OP No.2. A2.2-7-09 copy of complaint sent by complainant to OP No.3. A3. Postal acknowledgement card A4. 1-9-07 Copy of appeal. A5. 12-12-07 copy of lawyer notice. A6. Postal acknowledgement card A7.1-3-06 letter sent by Accounts Officer, (TR) Kasaragod to complainant. A8 to A41. Bills issued by Opposite parties A42. Bill issued by opposite parties PW1. U.Shankara Gatty. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
