PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 28th day of October 2011
Filed on :16/07/2009
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.370/2009
Between
B.J. Antony, : Complainant
India Sea Foods, (By Adv. Rendeep Prem,
Thoppumpady, Kochi-5. M/s. P.F. Thomas Associates,
Pachalam, Kochi-12)
And
M/s. Reliance Communications Ltd., : Opposite party
A&P Arcade, (By Adv. George Cherian
Sahodharan Ayyappan road, Karippaparambil,
Cochin-682 016. Karippaparambil Associates,
H.B.48, Panampilly Nagar,
Kochi-682 036)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The Complainant availed a telephone connection of the opposite party in 2002. Thereafter the same has not been working properly since 2006. The complainant was paying the monthly rent promptly till 17-01-2007. When the telephone went out of order, the complainant caused a complaint to the opposite party. However no action has been taken by the opposite party. So on 01-05-2007 the complainant requested the opposite party to disconnect the telephone connection and also requested to refund the amount for the unavailed service. Accordingly the opposite party disconnected the connection. Now the complainant is served with a lawyer notice demanding to pay Rs. 4,280/-. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to issue a no dues certificate and to pay costs of the proceedings.
2. Version of the opposite party.
This complaint is not maintainable, in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the remedy available to the complainant is arbitration proceedings as provided under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph act. The bill issued to the complainant is on the basis of actual usage, which the complainant is legally bound to pay. The opposite party has taken steps to rectify the defects of the telephone as and when the complainant intimated the same. The complainant’s telephone connection was disconnected due to non-payment of accumulated dues amounting to Rs. 4,280/-. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party. Opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.
3. The witness for the complainant was examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to A12 were marked on their side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that emanated for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complaint is maintainable in this forum?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get no dues certificate from the opposite party?
iii. Costs of the proceedings
5. Point No. i. In view of the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M Krishnan and Another (2009 (8) SCC 481 = AIR 2010 SC 90.) this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. However even then during evidence PW1 the witness for the complainant deposed that the complainant has availed the service of the opposite parties for their business purposes. In that case the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, sustained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision cited above. The remedy of the complainant lies elsewhere and is free to approach the proper forum if advised so.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of October 2011.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext A1 : Copy of letter dt. 16/11/2006
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 17/01/2007
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 26-01-2007
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 06/02/2007
A5 : Copy of customer voice form
A6 : Copy of letter dt. 11/04/2007
A7 : Copy of letter dt. 01/05/2007
A8 : Copy of letter dt. 16-06-2007
A9 : copies of bills (6 nos.)
series
A10 : copy of letter dt. 05-05-2009
A11 : copy of MACD Transaction
A12 : Authorization
Opposite party’s exhibits : Nil
Depositions :
PW1 : T.X. Joseph
