ORDER NO. 6 DT. 15.9.10

HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT

          Appellant through Mr. Kamal Krishna Manna, Ld. Advocate, and the OP No. 1 through Mr. P.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate, are present.  Heard both sides at length.  Judgement is passed as under :-

          This Appeal has been  filed by the Complainant against the judgement and order dt. 27.1.10 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 45/2007.  The complainant has alleged that on the basis of an offer namely “Pioneer Scheme” made by the Ops, she became a member of the said scheme w.e.f. 22.2.03.  Under such scheme she was provided with a mobile set and it was agreed that service connection would be provided to her by the Ops on payment of total amount of Rs. 24,600/- payable in 12 quarterly post-dated cheques of Rs. 1800/- each and one cheque for Rs. 3,000/- for the aforesaid mobile set.  It has also been alleged that accordingly 13 post-dated cheques for the aforesaid amount were paid to the Ops.  Subsequently the bills were raised to the complainant for several months and consequently 13 post-dated cheques were encashed by the Ops.  Thereafter the complainant by raising billing dispute stopped payment of subsequent bills to the Ops, as a result of which the service connection of the complainant was disconnected. 

          Regarding billing dispute it has been alleged by the complainant that the Ops assured to the complainant that she would get 40% discount on STD calls made to non-Reliance members upto 30.4.03 and would further get facilities for making 400 minutes of free call.  But most unfortunately bills were raised to the complainant without giving such discount as assured.

          In course of hearing of this Appeal the Appellant has failed to show any document that was produced before the Forum wherefrom such conditions would be apparent and/or to point out from the terms and conditions of the agreement that was entered into between the parties that such discounts were available to the complainant for the service connection provided to her.

          Be that as it may, the aforesaid complaint case has been dismissed by the concerned Forum upon observation that the billing dispute relating to the telephone bill has to be disposed by way of arbitration in terms of the provisions of Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act.  Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Ld. Advocate for the Ops, has produced before us the Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 (General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishna & Another).  It has been unequivocally held therein by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “When there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.  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.”

          In view of the aforesaid observation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any scope for interference with the impugned order.  The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.