ORDER ON ADMISSION<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant by name Pushparaj.M. Bhandari against opposite BSNL Ltd., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act with a prayer for to direct the opposite to make the payment of Rs. 10,500/- being the deposit of NONOYT of Rs. 500/- and damage of Rs. 10,000/- with interest and to quash illegal bills worth of Rs. 1,812/- raised by opposite and to cease, and to desist from making colour misleading broachers and advertisements etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The main allegations of this complaint are that, he is having land telephone connection from opposite bearing No. 220621 with Broad Band facility. The said phone gave proper service the first few years after installation, thereafter it started disturbance and other problems, phone jumbled, it was not giving proper service, he brought the said defects to the knowledge of the opposite BSNL but it remained unattended. Hence on 29-09-09 he issued legal notice dt. 29-09-09 by surrendering the phone and requested to refund the deposit but BSNL disconnected the land phone connection but raised bill for Rs. 1,476/- without justification. Hence this complaint was filed by him for the relief’s as noted in it.<br /> <br /> 3. As regards to the admission of this complaint is concerned, we heard from the side of the complainant and perused the allegations made in it against BSNL.<br /> <br /> 4. In the light of the allegations made by the complainant. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether this Consumer Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, in view of the recent ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case General Manager Telecom V/s. M. Krishnan and another reported in III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC).<br /> <br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1)This Forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, in view of the ruling reported in III (2009) CPJ 71 SC.<br /> <br /> (2) In view of the finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following:<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 6. The submission of the learned advocate for complainant is that, section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act is not derogatory in nature, the relief’s required to be provided under the C.P. Act are addition to the relief’s already provided under different enactments. Arbitration Clause in agreement in between the parties is no bar to entertain the complaint by the Consumer Forum. In the instant case there is deficiency in service on the part of the BSNL and also raised a bill illegal for Rs. 1,476/-. Hence Consumer Forum is not barred to try the subject matter of this complaint. In support of his arguments he relied on the following rulings:<br /> <br /> 1. Sky Pak Couriers Limited etc., V/s. TATA Chemical Limited etc., reported in 2000 SAR (Civil) 715 (SC)<br /> <br /> 2. III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC)<br /> General Manager Telecom V/s. M. Krishnan and another.<br /> 7. We heard the submission of the learned advocate for complainant and also perused the principles of the two rulings referred above.<br /> <br /> In the first ruling the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para-2 of its judgment as, arbitration clause in agreement between the parties__No bar to entertain of complaint under the C.P. Act by Redressal Agency, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.<br /> <br /> In the second ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom V/s. M. Krishnan and another held as Telephone Dispute__ non payment of bill__Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums/Courts barred__Special remedy provided under Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act__ In present case telephone connection disconnected for non-payment of bill __Reconnection directed by Consumer Forum__Compensation with interest awarded__Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum challenged __Petition dismissed by High Court__Civil appeal filed__Remedy under Consumer Protection Act, barred by implication__Orders of Consumer Forum and High Court set aside.<br /> <br /> 8. Keeping in view of the principles of the said two rulings, now we have to see the case of complainant against BSNL, complaint is seeking for refund of Rs. 500/- in respect of NONOYT deposit and also he is seeking for damage of Rs. 10,000/- with interest and for to quash the illegal bills worth of Rs. 1,812/- .<br /> <br /> 9. The allegations made in the complaint with the reliefs as noted above, we are of the clear view that, section 7B of Telegraphic Act 1885 and under the rules framed he can get appropriate remedy. In view of the circumstances stated above, we have followed the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of General Manager Telecom V/s. M. Krisihan and another reported in III (2009) (SC) and came to a conclusion that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint and accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 10. In-view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> The present complaint is dismissed at the stage of the admission as this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint.<br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 05-05-10)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br />