DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST,
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 120/2016
D.No._________________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SANAM INDUSTRIES,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER/
AUTHORIZED PERSON SH. ANANT JAIN,
R/o 4-A, LIBASPUR ROAD,
SAMEYPUR, DELHI-110042. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
SAMAYPUR BADLI, DELHI-110042. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 15.01.2016
Date of decision: 11.12.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant runs a soap manufacturing business under the head of Sanam Industries and the complainant’s company is a permanent consumer of OP and used a Landline connection of OP bearing no. 011-27834683 from many years. The complainant further alleged that due to reconstruction of the sewerages and road entire main line of telephone/broadbandunderground line
CC No.120/2016 Page 1 of 6
were destroyed in the 1st week of May-2015 by the earth moving machine and digging of earth construction was completed in mid-month of July-2015 and the project of construction of road was completed, the complainant made a complaint to OP at 2:30 p.m. for repair of damaged underground line of telephone servicesvide complaint book of OP and docket no.724 was provided by OP and clear date was given 16.05.2015. The complainant further alleged that about the complaint made to OP on 16.05.2015, same complaint was again made on 19.05.2015, 26.05.2015, 19.06.2015, 26.06.2015 & 04.01.2016 by the complainant to OP as dead phone in all the complaints of all the dates, docket no.355 is for 19.05.2015, docket no.351 is for 26.05.2015, docket no.122 is for 19.06.2015, docket no.382 is for 26.06.2015, docket no.412 is for 04.01.2016, till now telephone/broadband is dead and no action is taken up by OP. Thereafter, the complainant also made written complaint to OP dated 19.06.2015 which was received by OP by hand in Samaypur Badli MTNL office and dairy no.4 was mentioned on the written complaint, mentioning that a bill was arisen by OP to the complainant but the complainant requestedto adjust the amount as Telephone/broadband connection is dead from last 40-45 days due to construction of the road and adjust the paid amount in the next bill. The complainant further alleged that the complainant made a written complaint i.e. 2nd time to OP dated 21.07.2015 which was received by OP by hand in Samaypur Badli
CC No.120/2016 Page 2 of 6
MTNL office vide dairy no.6 mentioning that 2nd time again bill was arisen by OP to the complainant and the complainant was objecting for the same as the telephone/broadband connection is dead from last 80-90 days due to construction of road” and the complainant has made a written complaint i.e. 3rd time to OP dated 25.08.2015 which was received by OP by hand in the Samaypur Badli MTNL office on 01.09.2015 vide dairy no.11 and again 3rd time bill was arisen by OP to the complainant and the complainant was objecting that as the telephone/broadband connection is dead from last 100-120 days due to construction of road.” Thereafter, OP acknowledged receipts of payments made by the complainant and the complainant made telephonic conference with OP telephonic conference was executed on 27.11.2015, 03.12.2015, 29.12.2015 with the G.M. Cell, further complaint no. were provided by the G.M. Cell for all the dates C-345 for 27.11.2015, C-407 for 03.12.2015, F-106 for 29.12.2015 respectively and the complainant has personal meeting with the SDO, North West i.e. Mr. M.P. Tomar of OP regarding the above said complaints from May-2015 till now. The complainant further alleged that the complainant has met personally with SDO Cable North West i.e. Mr. Chauhan of OP regarding the issues faced and OP has failed to provide the satisfactory services to its consumer hence rendered them for deficiency in service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the present
CC No.120/2016 Page 3 of 6
complaint praying for direction to OP to restore the telephone/broadband connection of the complainant as well as compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (rupees Twenty Lakhs) for causing losses incurred by the complainant since the damage of the cable till today and to refund the paid amount of the bills.
3. OP has been contesting the complaint and has filed written statement. In its written statement, OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. OP submitted that underground cables were destroyed during the construction of Nala (drain) by PWD in the last week of May-2015 as a digging by JCB machine by PWD and the complainant has used his Landline phone and broadband connection by using 68 calls & 2785 MB data as broadband in month of May-2015. OP further submitted that the telephone number was remained out of order since last week of May-2015 and the rebate of Rs.8,228/- has been approved by the competent authority and Rs.3,502.19 has already been given in the bills of April, May & June-2016 and the remaining amount of rebate of Rs.4,725.81 has been given in the bills for the months of July-2016 to July-2017 as per statement dated 13.02.2019 filed by OP during course of oral arguments. OP further submitted that the present has been filed with a motive to claim compensation without any basis and further the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant is using the Landline and Broadband connection for
CC No.120/2016 Page 4 of 6
commercial purposes and rebate has been given to the complainant and thus there is no deficiency in service.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of the OP and submitted that OP has taken a false plea.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of bill dated 09.08.2016 issued by OP and copy of notice dated 12.09.2016 sent by the complainant to OP.
6. On the other hand, Sh. G.P. Gautam, SDO (Phones-II) of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per line of defence taken by OP in the written statement. OP has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OP in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant.
8. During oral arguments, Ld. Counsel for OP relied on following authority/case law:
i) Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 in case entitled General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & ANR. decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 01.09.2009.
9. We have considered the case law as relied by OP. In the said case it has been held that Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act bars the remedy under the Consumer Protection by its implication. The Provisions of Section 7-B are reproduced here as under:
Sec.7-B-Arbitration of Disputes:
i) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph lines, appliance or apparatus
CC No.120/2016 Page 5 of 6
arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whosebenefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute 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 disputes under this Section.
ii) The award of the arbitrator appointed under Sub-Section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court.
10. 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 the Rules.
11. It is also well settled that the Special Law overrides the General Law. Hence, in our opinion as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred case that the High Court was not correct in its approach and set-aside the order of High Court as well as the order of District Consumer Forum.
12. In the light of above, we find no force and merits in the case of the complainant. The case is accordingly dismissed.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 11th day of December, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.120/2016 Page 6 of 6
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
