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. 22 / 2004 TUESDAY THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2010. V.D. Rudrambal, D/o. V.M. Dhanaraman, No.3, East West Street, Bharathy Nagar extension Vellore 632 007. … Complainant. - Vs – Vellore District Telecom By its General Manage, Tollgate, Vellore 632 001. … Opposite party. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 7.7.2010, in the presence of Thiru. T.L.Narayanan, 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 was a subscriber with the opposite party having telephone No.2244857, later changed as 2241920. Though it was changed from 2244857 to 224190 as early as 31.8.02, the bills continued in the No.2244857. The complainant is a senior citizen retired from service and the bi-monthly bills never used to exceed Rs.700/-. But the reading from 1.9.02 to 30.9.02 suddenly showed spurt of 2153 calls for 30 days. Alarmed at this development the complainant at once drew the attention of the opposite party also enclosing the previous bills from 1.6.01 to 31.8.02 to prove that the bills have not exceeded Rs.700/-. The complainant received the bill for 8/2002 dated 7.102 was for 674 calls only and a sum of Rs.854 was charged including the cost of change of number Rs.25/-. Instead of sending a bi-monthly bill the opposite party suddenly sent a bill for 9/2002 alleging that 2153 calls were made charging Rs.2,698/- which erroneuous. Palpably wrong and apparently due to a defective meter reading or mistaken calculations on the part of the opposite party. The phone was disconnected only on 19.10.02. The complainant paid Rs.854/- and Rs.2698/- totaling to Rs.3,552/-. A letter was received from the opposite party dt.25.11.02 that the meter rending was set from 0 to 1464 fro a sum of Rs.2,049/- which they said would be credited and adjusted. In the meanwhile the complainant got a reconnection on 21.11.02 with dynamic lock provision from which date, till 25.3.03 the consumption for bi-monthly bills was not more then 600 calls only. Instead of setting right the erroneous excess bills the matter drifted and the complainant had no other option but to opt for disconnection on 25.3.03. Not only the excess payment was not adjusted, but after disconnection the opposite party had also illegally retained the deposit amount of Rs.1200/-. The complainant has paid excess amounts of Rs.658/- plus Rs.342/- totaling to Rs.1000/- and adding the deposit of Rs.1200/- a sum of Rs.2200/- is due and payable as and from 25.3.03 onwards. The opposite party has not only unjustly enriched itself, but also unlawfully deprived the complainant the user of the said amounts inspite of many repeated reminders. It amounts to gross deficiency of service, and unfair trade practice, causing extreme mental agony and physical distress for the complainant. He prayed for directing the opposite party to refund of Rs.2200/- by the opposite party to the complainant with interest at 24% p.a. from 25.3.03 till date of full and final payment and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation damages for the mental agony and physical distress caused by the gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is as follows: The complaint is unsustainable either in law or on facts and the opposite party does not admit any of the averments contained in the complaint, save those that are specifically admitted hereunder. It is true that the complainant was a subscriber of telephone No.2244857 and on her request, she was allotted a different telephone No. 2241920 with effect from 31.8.02. It is also true that a bill dt. 7.10.02 was issued for a sum of Rs.854/- for the old telephone No.2244857 for the period from 1.8.02 to 31.8.02. For the period from 31.8.02 to 30.9.02 a bill dt. 7.10.02 was issued for the new phone No.2241920 for a sum of Rs.2698/-. It is also true that the complainant has paid both the bills dt. 7.10.02 totaling a sum of RS.3552/-. It was later found out that the bill dt. 7.10.02 for the telephone No.2241920 was excessively charged as the opening meter reading was taken as “0”. But after verification the opening meter reading for telephone No.2241920 was taken as “1464” instead of ) and this was clarified to the complainant by the office of the opposite party in the letter dt. 25.11.02. Accordingly the bills dt. 7.10.02 for telephone Nos.2244857 and 2241920 were charged totally for Rs.1702/- instead of Rs.3552/- and the excess amount viz. Rs.1850/- paid by the complainant was adjusted in her unpaid letter bills. The complainant has not paid the bills dt. 7.12.02 for Rs.536/- dt.7.2.03 for Rs.866/- and 7.4.03 for Rs.1068/- totaling Rs.2470/-. The complainant also paid Rs.15/- for the bill dt. 7.12.02. So the total amount Rs.1865/- (Rs.1850 + Rs.15/-) paid by her was deducted from the unpaid bill amount viz. Rs.2470/-. After the above calculation, she has to pay the balance amount of Rs.605/- (Rs.2470 – Rs.1865/-). It is also true that the complainant had the deposit amount of Rs.1200/- in the Department. From the deposit amount, her dues viz. Rs.605/- was deducted and the remaining amount viz. Rs.595/- from the deposit had to be refunded to the complainant. As the complainant requested for permanent closure of her telephone No.2241920/- the said balance amount viz Rs.595/- was refunded to her by way of cheque No.096775 dt. 17.10.03. But the same was returned with postal endorsement as “door locked”. Further one of the company staff personally met the complainant and offered the cheque. But the complainant refused to accept the cheque. The company’s letter dt. 1.10.03 addressed to her specifically informed about the refund of Rs.595/- which was due to her. Under the circumstances, there is no question of refund of Rs.2200/- or any compensation since the complainant has come forward with a distorted and false claim. Therefore this complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 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 Ex.A30 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. 5. POINT NO. (a) The complainant has raised disputes in respect of excess telephone bills amounts and disconnection of his telephone against the opposite party. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. In the present case, the complainant contended that the excess payment was not adjusted by the opposite party. According to the opposite party, from the deposit amount her dues viz Rs.605/- was deducted and the remaining amount viz. Rs.595/- from the deposit was refunded to her by way of cheque No.296775, dt.17.10.03. But the complainant refund to accept the cheque. 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. 9. 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 July 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 1.3.04 - X-copy of letter by complainant to the opp party. Ex.A2- 12.11.03 - X-copy of letter by the complainant to the opp party. Ex.A3- 13.10.03 - X-copy of letter by the complainant to the opp party. Ex.A4- 1.10.03 - X-copy of letter by the opp party to the complainant. Ex.A5- 30.8.03 - X-copy of letter by the complainant to the opp party. Ex.A6- 27.8.03 - X-copy of letter by the complainant to the opp party. Ex.A7- 4.7.03 - X-copy of letter by the complainant to the opp party. Ex.A8- 6.3.03 - X-copy of letter by the complainant to the opp party. Ex.A9- 28.5.03 - X-copy of letter from the opp party to the complainant. Ex.A10- 7.4.03 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A11- 7.2.03 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A12- 7.12.02 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A13- 7.12.02 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A14-25.11.02 - X-copy of letter by the opp party to the complainant. Ex.A15- 25.10.02 - X-copy of letter by complainant to opp party. Ex.A16- 25.10.02 - X-copy of letter by complainant to the opp party. Ex.A17- 17.10.02 - X-copy of letter by complainant to the opp party. Ex.A18- 7.10.02 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A19- 7.10.02 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A20- 7.8.02 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A21- 11.6.02 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A22- 11.4.02 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A23- 11.2.02 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A24- 11.12.01 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A25- 11.10.01 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A26- 11.8.01 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A27- 7.4.03 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A28- 11.6.01 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A29- 11.4.01 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Ex.A30- 11.2.01 - X-copy of Telephone Bills. Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1- 1.10.03 - X-copy of letter addressed to complainant by opp party. Ex.B2- 27.10.03 - X-copy of letter addressed to complainant by opp party. Ex.B3- -- - X-copy of Returned Postal Cover. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [HONORABLE K.Dhayalamurthy] Member[HONABLE MR. JUSTICE Thiru A.Sampath] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE TMT .G.Malarvizhi] Member | | 
