Kerala

Idukki

CC/11/34

Sasi T.R. S/O Ramanpilla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

V.A.Biju & Lissy M.M.

18 Jul 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/34
 
1. Sasi T.R. S/O Ramanpilla
ThachuKuzhiyil House, Nethagi Road, Thodupuzha P.O.,Thodupuzha.
Idukki
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sub Divisional Engineer
Sub Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Office of the Sub Divisional engineer,External, Thodupuzha P.O.Thodupuzha.
Idukki
Kerala
2. Sheela
Sheela, Junior Telecom Officer,(B.S.N.L.)(J.T.O), Telecom,ThodupuzhaP.O., Thodupuzha
Idukki
Kerala
3. Shahul
Lineman, Telecom, (B.S.N.L.)Thodupuzha P.O.
Idukki
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MR. Laiju Ramakrishnan PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Bindu Soman Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING: 08.02.2011


 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.34/2011

Between

Complainant :

Sasi.T.R, S/o Raman Pillai,

Thachukuzhiyil House,

Nethaji Road,

Thodupuzha P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: Lissy.M.M & V.A.Biju)

And

Opposite Parties :

1. The Sub Divisional Engineer,

Telecom,

Office of the Sub Divisional Engineer,

External, Thodupuzha P.O,

Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: Sibi Thomas)

2. Sheela,

Junior Telecom Officer,

Telecom (B.S.N.L),

Thodupuzha P.O, Thodupuzha.

Idukki District.

3. Shahul,

Lineman,

Telecom (B.S.N.L),

Thodupuzha P.O, Thodupuzha.

Idukki District.

 

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Complainant and opposite party appeared through counsel. The matter is not at all maintainable as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, submitted by the counsel for the opposite party.  As per Appeal No.7687 of 2004 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr., “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. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under :-
 

“ S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes :-

(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section.
 

(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-s. (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court”.
 

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”. 

Hence the petition dismissed. 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18h day of July, 2011

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

 

 

 
 
[HONABLE MR. Laiju Ramakrishnan]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Bindu Soman]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.