Date of Filing:27.11.2009<br /> Date of Order: 16.07.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 16TH DAY OF JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO.: 2794 OF 2009<br /> <br /> S. R. Bhaskara<br /> S/o. Late Ranganatha Iyer S.V.<br /> R/at No. 41/B, 1st ‘A’ Main<br /> 3rd Cross, 7th Block, Koramangala<br /> Bangalore 560 095 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd.<br /> Silicon Terraces<br /> No. 30/1, Hosur Main Road<br /> Koramangala, Bangalore 560 095<br /> (Rep. by its Chief Operating Officer) Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The complainant is a MBA graduate working in Britannia Company. The complainant had subscribed for Tata Indicom phone connection during December 2007 from opposite party. He is regular customer. He used to clear bills. But one or two occassions due to his pre-occupation in office he could not pay the bills on time and connection was disconnected. Soon after he paid the pending bill, connection was activated within a span of few hours. Complainant got issued legal notice seeking repayment of instrument cost and along with amount spent on GCC cards. For deficiency of service he prayed compensation. The complainant prayed refund of amount of Rs. 4,128/- with interest and compensation.<br /> 2. The opposite party has filed defence version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law on facts and therefore, same may be dismissed.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. In the light of arguments the following point arises for consideration:<br /> Whether the complaint is maintainable?<br /> 5. The complainant is seeking relief of amount spent on GCC cards along with refund of instrument cost against the opposite party TATA Teleservices Ltd. The complainant is a subscriber of TATA Indicom land line phone connection. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Another, 2009 CTJ 1062 (SC) (CP) has held the parties are to be relegated to avail the remedy available under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. It has been further held that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. In the same contest the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that special law overrides the general law. Section 7B comes into play in the event of a dispute arising between the telegraph authority and the person who had obtained the line / appliance or apparatus for his use. So under these circumstances the remedy open to complainant is to go for arbitration as provided under section 7-B of the Act. The present dispute which is in connection with telephone connection / line or appliance or apparatus, therefore, the complaint before this forum is not maintainable. In view of the judgement of Supreme Court the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 16TH DAY OF JULY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />