BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
FA 1115 of 2009 against C.C. 816/2008, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.
Between:
Vinay Sanghi S/o. V. K. Sanghi
Age: 46 years, R/o. 501-A,
Major Residency
Masab Tank, Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
TATA Indicom
K. L. K. Building
Fateh Maidan Road
Hyderabad-500 001. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party
FA 1116 of 2009 against C.C. 817/2008, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.
Between:
Rajendra Sanghi
S/o. V. K. Sanghi
Age: 48 years, R/o. 501-A,
Major Residency
Masab Tank, Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
TATA Indicom
K. L. K. Building
Fateh Maidan Road
Hyderabad-500 001. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party
FA 1119 of 2009 against C.C. 34/2009, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.
Between:
Sanghi Packaging P. Ltd.,
3-6-63/2 & 3, Skyline Apartments
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-59
Rep. by its Director Vinay Sanghi *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
TATA Indicom
K. L. K. Building
Fateh Maidan Road
Hyderabad-500 001. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. V. K. Sanghi
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. C. Niranjan Rao
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE FIFTH DAY AUGUST TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) The appellants are unsuccessful complainants.
2) These three appeals are preferred against common respondent Tata Indicom for restoration of phone, and acknowledge payment of amount, compensation and costs.
3) Since common questions of fact and law arise, we are of the opinion that same can be disposed of by a common order.
4) The facts in C.C. 816/2008 could be taken up as representative case for better appreciation of facts. He alleges that he is a subscriber of phone installed at his residence and having two more phones one at his office and yet another phone at Sri Rajendra Sanghi’s residence. The customers contact him both at office as well as to his residence for their business deals. He received a phone bill for Rs. 261/- for his residential phone. In fact he paid the amount. In fact he paid Rs. 704/-, Rs. 153/- and Rs. 261/- for all the three phones by way of cheques drawn on Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., and put in the drop box. However, the respondent disconnected the phone on 30.9.2008 without giving any notice. On complaint they had reconnected on 1.10.2008. Again it was disconnected on 4.10.2008 directing him to pay through e-seva centre. Alleging not acknowledging the amounts paid by way of cheque through drop box, and further disconnecting the phone without any notice amounts to deficiency in service filed the complaint for relief of restoration of phone, and for issuing acknowledgement for the amount paid, compensation and costs.
5) The respondent resisted the matter by stating that it raised bills dt. 10/9/2008, 10/10/2008, 10/11/2008, and 10/12/1008 for varying amounts, and though he had paid some amount still a balance of Rs. 852/- was left unpaid. Since he did not clear the said amount it was disconnected,
by recoursing to Clause 7(a)(iii) of agreement wherein it is entitled to disconnect for non-payment of charges. The complainant can as well pay either by way of drop box or through e-seva centre. If really he had paid he could have produced the bank statement that cheques were encashed or otherwise not cleared. It had restored the phone pursuant to interim orders of the Dist. Forum. The complaint is not maintainable nor the Dist. Forum has jurisdiction, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A8 marked while the respondent filed the affidavit evidence of its Asst. Manager (Legal) and got Exs. B1 to B5 marked.
7) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the payments made by the complainant were not established and as such the respondent was entitled to disconnect for non-payment of dues. There was no deficiency in service on its part, and therefore dismissed the complaint without costs.
8) Aggrieved by the said decision the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that when facility of drop box was provided, it had to honour when the cheques were kept in the box, for payment of the bills. In fact it is the duty of the opposite party to file documents to show as to the status of the cheques that were kept in the drop box. He was forced to pay the amount due to disconnection. Only by way of interim orders he could get connection.
9) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
10) At the outset, we may state that though the jurisdiction of the Dist. Forum was questioned, the Dist. Forum did not choose to consider the said contention. Before going into the facts the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan reported in AIR 2010 SC 90 after considering the remedy provided u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act opined that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction. Since the question of jurisdiction has been raised by the opposite party, and by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court being the law of the land we must hold this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We have to take cognizance of the said decision. Their Lordships’ opined :
“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. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:- “ 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.
It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law.”
In regard to mobile phones the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the above said decision in Prakash Varma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. reported in 2011 CTJ 489 (SC). Their Lordships’ upheld the orders of National Commission in dismissing the complaint recoursing to Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act.
10) In the light of authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, obviously the consumer fora have no jurisdiction to resolve the cases arising under Indian Telegraph Act. Since, we are of the opinion that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction, however the complainants can still pursue their remedies by invoking the said provision under Indian Telegraph Act. The period spent for prosecuting the matter before the Dist. Forum would undoubtedly be excluded for the purpose of reckoning limitation.
11) In the result the appeals are dismissed. No costs. The complainants are as well directed to seek remedy provided u/s 7B of Indian Telegraph Act.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
05/08/2011
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
