KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 591/2010

ORDER DATED: 28-02-2011

PRESENT:

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN    : MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                             :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                  :   MEMBER

1.      The Divisional Engineer,

BSNL, Chalakkudy Exchange,

Chalakkudy.

2.      The Sub Divisional Engineer,

BSNL Vellikulangara Exchange,

Vellikulangara.

3.      The Area Manager (South),

BSNL Thrissur.                                : APPELLANTS

4.      The General Manager,

Thrissur SSA Circle,

BSNL, Thrissur.

5.      The Assistant General Manager (PG),

Public Grievance, Office BSNL,

Kerala Telecom Circle,

O/o CGMT, PMG Junction, TVPM.

(By Adv.Sri.Mathews. K. Philip.)

          Vs.

K.D.Shaju,

Kannamkunny House, Nayarangady,

Kodassery, Mukundapuram Taluk.          : RESPONDENT

(By Adv.Sri.S.Reghukumar)

           JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN:JUDICIAL MEMBER

Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.733/06 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur.  The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in shifting the landline telephone connection from the complainant’s old house to the new residence.  The complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs.1.lakh for the financial loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

2.      The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service.  They also contented that the shifting of the landline connection was not feasible and so a WLL connection was given to the new residence of the complainant.  Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.      Before the Forum below, Exts.P1, P2 and R1 to R6 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the complaint in CC.733/06.  On the basis of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:27/8/2010 allowing the complaint and thereby directing the opposite parties to give a cable telephone connection to the complainant by allotting the old telephone number in the place WLL phone provided.   The claim for compensation and cost is disallowed.  It is against the said order the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties therein.

4.      When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant.  We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties.  It is submitted that the Forum below had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in CC.733/06.  He also relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan Nair & Another and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and for dismissal of the complaint in CC.733/00.

5.      There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant availed the services of the opposite parties for getting a telephone connection to his house.  The respondent/complainant had also applied for shifting the aforesaid existing landline to his new residence.  But the opposite parties could not shift the said telephone connection on the ground that it was not feasible for giving a land phone connection to the new house of the complainant.  Thus, the dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties was with respect to the shifting of the land line from the old residence to the new residence of the complainant.

6.      The aforesaid dispute can be treated as one coming under the purview of section 7 – B of the Telegraph Act.  It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the dispute regarding shiftingof an apparatus and the feasibility of the lines etc are to be treated as a disputes coming under the purview of Sec.7-B of the Telegraph Act.  It is also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the aforesaid disputes are to be referred to an arbitrator appointed under the Telegraph Act as provided under Sec.7-B of the said Act.  So, it can very safely be held that the Forum below had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in CC.733/06.  If that be so, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be set aside.  Hence we do so.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated:27-08-2010 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in CC.733/06 is set aside and the complaint therein is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  It is made clear that the respondent/complainant in CC.733/06 will be at liberty to approach the arbitrator constituted under Sec.7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for getting his grievances redressed.  The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs throughout.

M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER

VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER

M.K. ABDULLA SONA :   MEMBER

VL.