Dt. 13.07.2015

JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER

          This Revision petition has been filed against order No. 06.dated 14.07.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II, in CDF / Unit-II/ CC No.122/2014 .

          The complaint case relates to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the service provider, being Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

          It has been alleged in the petition of complaint that a telephone connection being provided by the OP service provider , i.e., being the Calcutta Telephones,  in 1985, the telephone No.25306078 is being used with CLI facilities. On 30.08.2013 the Complainant found that the telephone connection was not working . He reported the matter on 31.08.2013 to the local telephone office and his docket No. was 12149325372,  dated 31.08.2013,  but no action was taken.  As he failed to avail proper service of the telephone connection and as no fruitful result was forthcoming in regard to his grievance , a petition of complainant has been lodged before the Ld. Forum below with prayer for direction upon the OP service provider to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation with rebate for non-enjoyment of telephone facilities for 1 month or so and to change the present telephone set with a new telephone set with CLI, apart from litigation cost and compensation for mental agony and harassment.

          A notice being served upon the OPs i.e., BSNL and Deputy Engineer , BSNL the OPs filed an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint petition.

          Ld. Forum below having heard Ld. Lawyers of both parties, rejected the maintainability petition on contest with a cost of Rs.3,000/- against the OPs.

          Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the OPs have filed the present Revision petition seeking direction to set aside the order of the Ld. Forum below.

          In their Revision petition it has been asserted by the Revisionist that the Complaint is barred by jurisdiction as the BSNL  is a statutory authority and there is specific provision under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act for arbitration in matter of such dispute . Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004,  it has also been emphasized that as per Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, any dispute concerning any telegraph line , appliance or apparatus arising between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit , the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided , the dispute shall be determined by arbitration. In the present case the dispute between the Complainant and the BSNL, being the Revisionist, is regarding the service of the telephone line enjoyed by the Complainant/OP in the Revision Petition. The matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and as such the order of the Ld. Forum below suffers from jurisdictional error and legal infirmity. The impugned order deserves to be set aside.

          OP in person appeared and submitted that the BSNL is guided by the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act of India of 1997 and as per the provisions of the said Act , the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum. It has also been argued that the case  in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 arose out of a Writ Appeal before the High Court of Kerala for disconnection of a line for non-payment of monthly telephone bill , but in his case , the Complainant was paying regularly  his monthly telephone bills . There is no question of non-payment of any bill . It was rather the deficiency in service on the part of the Revisionist/OP in the complaint matter that a complaint petition has been filed for proper adjudication . The reference to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court may not be applicable in his case. The impugned order deserves to be upheld.

          We have gone through the revision petition together with copies of the impugned order dated 14.07.2014, the petition of complaint as well as the petition of OP Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the maintainability of the subject case , apart from citation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

          The point for consideration before us is whether the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity or jurisdictional error.

          The main allegation of the Complainant in his petition of complaint is about deficiency in service on the part of the OP service provider.

          There  is dispute that the Complainant / OP in the revision petition is enjoying telephone service from the OP service provider. As per Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885, as amended  up to date, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line , appliance or apparatus arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit , the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been , provided , the dispute shall be determined by arbitration . The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to by the Revisionist  is related non payment of telephone bill , but the fact of the present case is different in nature as the complaint is about unsatisfactory  telephone service , apart from non- action or in-action on the part of the service provider. The revision prayer has not been  substantiated with any supporting document, if the BSNL is a ‘telegraph authority’ in the strict sense of the term as provided under Section 3 (6) where the term telegraph authority  has been defined as being the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs including any officer empowered by him to perform all or any of the functions of the telegraph authority under the Telegraph Act. If the BSNL is not notified or empowered as telegraph authority the application  of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act  can not be attracted.

          Ld. Forum below has noted that BSNL being guided by the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act of India of 1997, as per Section 14 of the Act, complaint of an individual Consumer is maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The Revisionist has not come up with any substance contrary to such observation of the Ld. Forum below. Again,  in the absence of any document/notification describing the BSNL as a telegraph authority as provided under Section 3 (6), we are of the considered view that Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act could not be applicable in the present complaint matter . In that view of the matter, the impugned order is found to have been passed without any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. Hence,

                                                 Ordered

That the Revision petition be and the same is dismissed on contest. The impugned order is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.