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. 61 / 1999 MONDAY THE 28th DAY OF JUNE 2010. D. Pattabiraman, S/o. Duraisamy Gounder, Social Worker, Agriculturist, Vellakkuttai Village & Post, Vaniambadi Taluk, Vellore District. . … Complainant. - Vs – The General Manager, Telecom, Tolgate, Vellore – 1. … Opposite party. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 14.6.2010, in the presence of Thiru. T.L.Larayanan, 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 is a subscriber to the opposite party, having a telephone No.68326. He has been scrupulously and promptly paying the bills due to the opposite party. While so the complainant was shocked to receive a bill dated. 24.12.98, but sent to me on 22.12.98 and received by me on 22.12.98 for a sum of Rs.1,802/- alleging that amounts due and remained unpaid as follows: 1. 11.8.97 for Rs.105/- 2. 11.10.97 for Rs.147/- 3. 11.12.97 for Rs.105/- 4. and 1.2.98 for Rs.1,405/- with surcharge of Rs.10/- each, totaling to Rs.1802/-. It is inexplicable as to how or why the opposite party sent a bill post dated, or that the department kept quiet for more than one year. The bills are therefore liable to be struck down. On receipt of the bill dt. 24.12.98 but served on 22.12.98 itself. The complainant immediately wrote a letter to protest to the opposite party on 23.12.98 itself. The Department received the letter on 28.12.98 itself, but continued to be silent. Without bothering to investigate and without notice to the complainant the telephone was disconnection on 15.2.99 itself, after which the complainant wrote to the opposite party pleading for immediate restoration and to investigate the matter which met with the same fate, of being ignored. Curiously the opposite party chose to issue a reply dated 3.3.99 calling upon the complainant to pay only a sum of Rs.502/- and not Rs.1,802/- and called upon the complainant to produce the particulars which is unreasonable, as the particulars of payment must be with the department only and cannot be unavailable to re open and make a demand for a period of more than one year, while the bill dated 1.2.98 for Rs.105/- has been paid. On 5.3.99 itself the complainant replied to the said letter of 3.3.99 for which also till date there has been no reply nor any action to investigate and restore the connection. The disconnection without notice has resulted not only in loss of reputation, but also in loss of business good will and loss of service. He has prayed for directing the opposite party declaring that the bills dt. 24.12.98 for Rs.1,802/- and 3.3.99 for Rs.502/- are arbitrary, illegal, unlawful, baseless and unenforceable and to restore the telephone No.68326 of the complainant without demanding any reconnection charges and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the gross deficiency in service and Rs.3000/- towards costs. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is as follows: The opposite party does not admit any of the averments contained in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein and the complainant is put to strict proof of them. It is true that the complainant was provided with a telephone connection No.68326 from Vellakuttai Telephone exchange. The telephone bills are issued bi-monthly. But the complainant is a chronic defaulter and never settled the bills within the due dates stipulated on the bills. The bill dated 1.6.98 for a sum of Rs.217/- was to be paid on or before 29.6.98. But the complainant paid the same on 23.7.98. Another bill dt. 1.8.98 for Rs.115/- was to be paid on or before 31.8.98. But he paid the same on 11.9.98. Yet another bill dt.1.10.98 for Rs.485/- was to be paid on or before 23.10.98. But he paid the bill on 24.11.98. As per the departmental rules disconnection of telephone is done only in cases where the outstanding exceed Rs.400/- either in one bill or for several bills. Knowing the said Department Rules, the complainant intentionally evaded settlement of the bills in the due dates. The bill dated 11.8.97 for a sum of Rs.115.00 for which the due date was 1.9.97 has not been paid by the complainant so far i.e. even after 2 years. Another bill dt.11.10.97 for a sum of Rs.157.00 should have been paid by him on 1.11.97. The said bill also remains unsettled even after the expiry of 22 months. Yet another bill dt. 11.12.97 for a sum of Rs.115/- should have been paid by the complainant on or before 1.1.98. But the said bill also has not been paid by the complainant so far. The last bill dated 1.2.98 for a sum of Rs.115/- was issued to the complainant and he should have paid the said bill on or before 23.2.98. But he had not paid the said bill so far. As per the directions of the Department a review was conducted on the outstanding dues of all telephones of all the exchanges. As a result thereof it was noticed that the complainant had been keeping four bills dt.11.8.97, 11.10.97, 11.12.97 and 1.2.98 amounting to Rs.502/- pending without settlement for months / years together. While requesting the complainant to settled the amount of four pending bills for Rs.502/- a demand note was issued wrongly for Rs.1802/- with the following details. 11.2.97 Rs.115/- 11.10.97 Rs.157/- 11.12.97 RS.115/- 1.2.98 Rs.1415/- wrongly issued instead of Rs.115/- Immediately after coming to know that bill dated 1.2.98 was wrongly shown as Rs.1415/- instead of Rs.115/- the Department sent a communication dt. 29.12.98 to the complainant asking him to collect the fresh demand note for Rs.502/- instead of Rs.1802/- from the exchange. Since the complainant failed to pay the above said four bills amount to Rs.502/- his telephone was rightly disconnected on 15.2.99. It is only the complainant who has committed gross deficiency of service in not paying the bills. Thus the complainant is not entitled to any relief much less any compensation. Therefore, dismiss the complaint 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?. 5. Ex.A1 to ExA14 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 6. POINT NO. (a) The complainant has raised disputes in respect of telephone bills amounts and disconnection of his telephone against the opposite party. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. In the present case, the contention of the complainant that telephone bill dated 24.12.98 for a sum of Rs.1802/- alleging that amounts due and remained. Since the complainant failed to pay the said amount his telephone connection was disconnected by opposite party. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 28th day of June 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 1.2.98 - X-copy of the bill Rs.105./- Ex.A2- 24.12.98 - X-copy of bill for Rs.1802/- Ex.A3- 23.12.98 - X-copy of letter by the complainant. Ex.A4- 28.12.98 - Postal Ack. Card. Ex.A5- 19.2.99 - X-copy of letter by complainant. Ex.A6- -- - X-copy of Certificate of posting. Ex.A7- 3.3.99 - X-copy of letter by opp party to complainant. Ex.A8- 3.3.99 - X-copy of demand notice for Rs.502/- Ex.A9- 5.3.99 - X-copy of letter by complainant to opp party. Ex.A10- -- - X-copy of certificate of posting. Ex.A11- 6.7.99 - X-copy of letter by opp party to complainant. Ex.A12- 1.2.99 - x-copy of bill for Rs.399/- Ex.A13- 1.4.99 - X-copy of bill for Rs.281/- Ex.A14- 11.8.99 - X-copy of bill for Rs.105/- Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1- 29.12.98 - X-copy of communication. Ex.B2- 3.3.99 - X-copy of Demand Note. Ex.B3- 1.2.98 - X-copy of bill. Ex.B4- 6.7.99 - X-copy of communication. Ex.B5- 11.8.97 - Telephone bill. Ex.B6- 11.10.97 - Telephone bill. Ex.B7- 11.12.97 - Telephone bill. Ex.B8 – 1.2.98 - Telephone bill. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. | 
