In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 17 / 2011.
1) Consumer Unity & Trust Society Calcutta Resource Centre,
3, Suren Tagore Road, Kolkata-700019. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The CAO/TR South, C.T.D. / Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
82, Ballygunge Place, Kolkata-700019.
2) And Nodal, Appellate and the CGM Office,
The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Telephone Bhawan, 2nd Floor,
34, B.B.D. Bag, Kolkata-700001. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 14 Dated 25/05/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Consumer Unity and Trust Society against the o.ps. BSNL. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant applied for Broad Band Services on 18.7.05 to o.p. under phone no.2227-4985 (Data One Business Plan 3000) and got the connection and enjoyed their broad band service from Aug. 2005 to Sept. 2006 and they were never billed by them for more than Rs.3000/- per month for broad band service during this period which they paid regularly. In Sept. 2006 they changed the place of their office and transferred the above mentioned broad band service to the new place of their office under phone no.2460-4985 which took 2 months (Sept. 2006 and Oct. 2006) time for transferring the broad band service. Even at their new office they never received BSNL broad band service bill for more than Rs.3000/- that is fixed monthly charges from Nov. 2006 to Sept. 2010 which they paid regularly. But in the month of Nov. 2010 complainant received a bill of broad band service along with phone bill amounting to Rs.1,29,038/- for the bill period of Oct. 2010. These extra charges for broad band usage have been billed for the period of the last 43 months i.e. from the month they shifted their broad band service to the present office and this is the first time that they were intimated about the extra usage. Had they been intimated in the very first month of such extra usage, they would have shifted to BSNL Unlimited Business Plan of 3300 with additional charges of Rs.300/- per month. Complainant did not pay the bill. Complainant in writing on 7.12.10 requested them for sending a revised bill without extra charges of broad band as it was deficiency on their (o.ps) services. Complainant also requested them to change their existing plan to Unlimited Business Plan 3300. This letter was delivered directly to the Officer CAO/R/South, CTD/BSNL, Ballygunge, Kolkata and the officer accepted the letter but did not acknowledge. In response to this letter they sent a revised bill for Rs.35,037/- on 9.12.10, under their Sambandh Option-1, but did not change the existing plan. Hence the case filed by complainant.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and o.ps. have further stated in para 11 of w/v that the instant case is not maintainable and barred u/s 7B Indian Telegraph Act, 1986 and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons: -
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. On perusal of the record we come to find that the instant dispute centres around telephone broad band facilities relating billing dispute.
In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India published in AIR 2010 SC 90 this Forum is not in a position to try the instant case since barred u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to further hold that when there is a special remedy provided in Sec 7B Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bills then the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred and Rule 413 of Telegraph Rules provide services relating to telephone subject. This view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is found reflected in the decision of Hon’ble National Commission of India in Revision Petition no.1703 of 2010.
That being the position this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this case in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India mentioned above.
Hence, ordered,
That the instant case is not maintainable in this Forum since this Forum has got no jurisdiction in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to in the body of the judgment. Complainant is at liberty to agitate the issue before the appropriate authority on the self-same cause of action.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_____ _____Sd-_____ ______Sd-______
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
