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. 20 / 2004 TUESDAY THE 15th DAY OF JUNE 2010. Smt. Salomie, W/o. P. Krishnan, 22/29, Budda Street, Perumugai Village and Post, Vellore. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. The General Manager, B.S.N.L., Tolgate, Vellore – 1. 2. Accounts Officer (TR) B.S.N.L., Tolgate, Vellore – 1. … Opposite parties. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 9.6.2010, in the presence of Thiru. J. Venkatramani, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. T.N.K.Selvaraj, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 , 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 a subscriber of Telephone No.2254917 and her phone was not functioning during the months of March and April 2003,Several oral complaints were made with the Department concerned which did not yield any result. The complainant made a personal visit to the office of the 1st opposite party in the 1st week of May 2003 and complained about the non-functioning of her above said phone to the 1st opposite party who assured her that her complaint would be looked into immediately. But nothing was happened till 2003. Whileso, she received, a bill dated 7.7.03 for sum of Rs.532/- for the calls made during the period from 1.5.03 to 30.6.03 issued by the 2nd opposite party. As soon as she received the said bill, she rushed to the opposite parties and reminded then of her complaint given during the 1st week of May 2003 about the non functioning of her phone from March 2003. As per the bill above said, the complainant’s phone connection was disconnected by the 2nd opposite party, due to the nonpayment of earlier bill dated 7.3.03 within 27.3.03 and the same was reconnected only in the 3rd week of May 2003 on payment of reconnection fee of Rs.100/-. On perusing the bill dt. 7.9.03, like the earlier occasion her phone connection was disconnected by the 2nd opposite party due to the non-payment of the said bill within 27.5.03. On perusing the bill dt. 7.11.03, the earlier bill dtt.7.5.03 was paid belatedly, her phone connection was under disconnection only. While her phone connection was under disconnection, it is a shock and surprise to note that the bill dt.7.7.03 and the subsequent bill dt.7.7.03 have showed that 135 calls were made during 1.5.03 to 30.6.03 and 73 calls were made during 1.7.03 to 31.8.03 respectively by the complainant which are highly impossible and improbable. She once again reported the same orally to the opposite parties in the first week of September 2003. But no reply was given to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. As per the bills dated 7.9.03 and 7.11.03 there was no net chargable calls. Whileso, the 2nd opposite party has charged Rs.28.80 each in two bills as tax i.e. totally Rs.57.60 as Tax. The 2nd opposite party has thus wrongly collected tax on the rent of the instrument. She has so far paid Rs.503/- as per bill dt. 7.3.03 on 8.5.03 Rs.493/- as per bill dt. 7.5.03 on 25.6.03 and Rs.552/- as per bill dated 7.7.03 on 15.12.03 Rs.507/- as per bill dated. 7.9.03 on 15.12.03 and Rs.399/- as per bill dated 7.11.03 on 15.12.03. The complainant has thus totally paid Rs.2,454/-. In addition to it, the complainant has paid Rs.389/- as per bill dated 7.1.04 and the 2nd opposite party has collected Rs.108/- as reconnection fee on 30.12.2003. In spite of this, the 2nd opposite party has not given reconnection to the complainant’s phone till 20.1.04. The complainant has therefore caused to issue lawyer’s notice dt.21.1.04 claiming compensation and the amount paid by the complainant the 2nd opposite party to give reply. As such the 2nd opposite party gave reply to 1st opposite party who in turn sent a copy of the same to the complainant’s Advocate on 4.2.2004. On account of dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered a loss and injury due to deprivation, harassment and mental agony and for which she is entitled to compensation. Therefore, directing the opposite parties to reconnect the complainant’s phone with immediate effect and to refund the amount of Rs.2454/- paid by the complainant to the Department through opposite parties, and to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for the dereliction of duty and to pay Rs.500/- being cost of this complaint. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party and adopted by the 1st opposite party are as follows: The complaint is mischievous, untenable and unsustainable either in law or on facts. The 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 is the subscriber of Vellore Telephone No.2254917. It is false to state that the complainant’s telephone was not functioning during March and April 2003. The complainant’s telephone was disconnected on 13.2.03 for nonpayment of bill dated 7.1.03. The complainant paid the said bill on 4.3.03 and the telephone was reconnected. Then the telephone was disconnected on 9.4.03 for non-payment of bill dated 7.3.03. The complainant paid the said bill on 8.5.03 and on the same day the telephone was reconnected. Then, the telephone was disconnected on 11.6.03 for non-payment of the bill dated 7.5.03. Then it was reconnected on 25.6.03 when the said bill was paid by the complainant. Again the telephone was disconnected on 26.8.03 for the non-payment of the bill dated 7.7.03. Thus, the complainant’s telephone was working from 4.3.03 to 8.4.03 from 8.5.03 to 10.6.03 and from 25.6.03 to 25.8.03. On all those dates the telephone has been used by the complainant. Hence for the said periods, a sum of RS.503/- was charged as per bill dated 7.3.03, Rs.493/- for the bill dated 7.5.03 Rs.552/- for the bill dated 7.7.03 Rs.507/- for the bill dated 7.9.03 and Rs.399/- for the bill dated 7.11.03. The bills dt. 7.7.03 and 7.9.03 were paid by the complainant only on 15.12.03 and paid reconnection charge Rs.108/- on 30.12.03. And so, the telephone was reconnected on 12.1.04. Then a bill dated 7.1.04 was issued to the complainant with rental and service tax for Rs.398.80 which was not paid by the complainant and hence her telephone was again disconnected on 12.2.04. Hence the said bill was adjusted from the deposit amount. As per Rules of the Company, if any telephone is under disconnection for 3 months the future bills could be adjusted from the deposit amount. Since the complainant’s telephone was under disconnection from 26.8.03 till 12.1.04 i.e. for more than 3 months, the bill dated 7.1.04 was adjusted from the deposit amount. Further, the bill dt. 7.3.04 for RS.342.36 was also adjusted in the deposit amount. On 8.4.04, the complainant paid the said two bills and hence her telephone was reconnected on 8.4.04 and at present her telephone is working. Thus, it is clear that all the allegations in the complaint are palpably false to the knowledge of the complainant and made for the purpose of this complaint. Since the complainant’s telephone is working there is no question of any reconnection. Further, there is no question of refund of Rs.2454/- to the complainant since she had paid the amount only for the use of the telephone and the bills were in order and they were paid by the complainant only after disconnection. The complaint is highly vexatious, frivolous, devoid of merits. Therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed with the compensatory cost. 3. Now the point 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 parties? c) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 4. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 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) : The complainant contended that the complainant is a subscriber of Telephone No.2254917, and she received a bill dated 7.7.03 for a sum of Rs.532/- for the calls made during the period from 1.5.03 to 30.6.03 issued by the 2nd opposite party. AS per the above bill the complainant’s phone connection was disconnected by the 2nd opposite party due to the non-payment of earlier bill dated 7.3.03 and the same was reconnected only in the 3rd week of May 2003 on payment of reconnection fee of Rs.100/-. On perusing the bill dt. 7.11.03 the earlier bill dt. 7.5.03 was paid belatedly, her phone connection was under disconnection, she reported the above facts orally to the opposite parties in the first week of September 2003. But no reply was given to the complainant. Further, the opposite parties collected excess amount of RS.2454/- from the complainant. On account of dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered a loss and mental agony for which she is entitled to compensation. 6. The opposite parties 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 parties 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. It is further contended that the complainant’s telephone was disconnected on 13.2.03 for nonpayment of bill dated 7.1.03. and the complainant paid the said bill on 4.3.03, the said telephone was reconnected. Then the telephone was disconnected on 9.4.03 for non-payment of bill dated 7.3.03 and the complainant paid the said bill on 8.5.03 and on the same day the telephone was reconnected. Then, the telephone was disconnected on 11.6.03 for non-payment of the bill dated 7.5.03. Then it was reconnected on 25.6.03 when the said bill was paid by the complainant. Again the telephone was disconnected on 26.8.03 for the non-payment of the bill dated 7.7.03. The bills dt.7.7.03 and 7.9.03 were paid by the complainant only on 15.12.03 and paid reconnection charge Rs.108/- on 30.12.03 and the telephone was reconnected on 12.1.04. As per Rules of the Company, if any telephone is under disconnection for 3 months the future bills could be adjusted from the deposit amount. Since the complainant’s telephone was under disconnection from 26.8.03 till 12.1.04 i.e. for more than 3 months, the bill dated 7.1.04 was adjusted from the deposit amount. Since the complainant’s telephone is working there is no question of any reconnection. Further, there is no question of refund of Rs.2454/- to the complainant since she had paid the amount only for the use of the telephone and the bills were in order and they were paid by the complainant only after disconnection. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed with the compensatory cost. 8. According to the complainant as per the bills dated 7.9.03 and 7.11.03 there was no net chargable calls. Whileso, the 2nd opposite party has charged Rs.28.80 each in two bills as tax i.e. totally Rs.57.60 as Tax. The 2nd opposite party has thus wrongly collected tax on the rent of the instrument. She has so far paid Rs.503/- as per bill dt. 7.3.03 on 8.5.03 Rs.493/- as per bill dt. 7.5.03 on 25.6.03 and Rs.552/- as per bill dated 7.7.03 on 15.12.03 Rs.507/- as per bill dated. 7.9.03 on 15.12.03 and Rs.399/- as per bill dated 7.11.03 on 15.12.03. The complainant has thus totally paid Rs.2,454/-. In addition to it, the complainant has paid Rs.389/- as per bill dated 7.1.04 and the 2nd opposite party has collected Rs.108/- as reconnection fee on 30.12.2003. Thus the opposite parties collected excess amount of Rs.2454/- from the complainant. According to the opposite parties, a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, so this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this case. 9. 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. 10. In the present case, the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties collected excess telephone bills from the complainant and for which she is entitled to compensation. According to the opposite parties as per Indian Telegraph Rule 443 for non-payment of the dues, the department is entitled to disconnect the complainant’s telephone and the complainant cannot claim restoration of the connection without paying the dues. Therefore it is clear that the disputes between the parties in respect of telephone bills. If any dispute in respect of telephone bills and 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 parties 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 parties is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case. 11. 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) as against the complainant herein. 12. POINT NOS (b) & (c) : In view of our findings on point No.(a) 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 (b) & (c) also as against the complainant herein. 13. 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 15th day of June 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 7.7.03 - X-copy of the bill to the 2nd opposite party. Ex.A2- 7.9.03 - X-copy of the bill to the 2nd opposite party. Ex.A3- 7.11.03 - X-copy of the bill to the opp party. Ex.A4- 7.1.04 - X-copy of the bill to the 2nd opp party. Ex.A5- 21.1.04 - X-copy of Lawyer Notice. Ex.A6- 4.2.04 - X-copy of Reply Notice. Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1 - 7.2.04 - X-copy of History of connection for Telephone No.2254917 Ex.B2- -- - Duplicate bill for the period 1.11.03 to 31.12.03 Ex.B3- -- - Duplicate bill for the period 1.1.04 to 11.2.04 Ex.B4- 8.4.04 - X-copy of letter by complainant to the Accounts officer, BSNL, Vellore. Ex.B5- 8.4.04 - X-copy of letter by the Accounts Officer to the JTO, Vellore. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. | 
