Date of Filing – 03.03.2017

Date of Hearing – 06.11.2017

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Complainant to impeach the Order No.21 dated 02.02.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 261/2014.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Complainant Sri Nil Ratan Ray under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the Opposite Party/respondent  i.e. the Divisional Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) to restore the telephone connection on receiving of entire outstanding dues from the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of order.

          The Appellant herein being complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he has a landline telephone connection provided by BSNL being No.2464-4272.  The said telephone was disconnected by OP frequently since May, 2008 and in this regard several complaints made by the complainant went in vain.  However, the complainant was going on paying bills regularly till 18.12.2012.  In December, 2012 the OP disconnected the line though he paid the bill of Rs.1,244/- and in this regard the letter given by him on 24.01.2013 went in vain.  Hence, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for a direction upon the OP to reconnect the telephone line, to pay compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.

          The Respondent being OP did not appear to contest.

          On evaluation of the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Order allowed the complaint with the direction upon the OP as indicated above.  However, being dissatisfied with the said order, the complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the appellant, who appeared in person and also the Ld. Advocate for the respondent.

          Having heard the parties to the appeal and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that the appellant was a consumer of BSNL being Telephone No.2464-4272.  The Annexure-M i.e. the Docket of BSNL dated 03.05.2008 indicates that there was external fault in the said telephone line.  The Docket dated 05.09.2011 further speaks that the telephone was not functioning owing to external fault.  Several correspondences were made by the appellant but no fruitful result has come out for reconnection of such land line telephone. 

          The appellant, who is an Advocate in profession by a letter dated 24.01.2013 addressed to the Divisional Manager, Internal 464 Exchange of Calcutta Telephone requested to the addressee/respondent requesting him to correct the bill like previous bill and to take exact charges as the bill of Rs.3,305/- appears to him a vague amount.

          There is no document whatsoever to show that the appellant had ever approached the BSNL Authority for disconnection of line after observing the formalities.  Regarding the disputed bill, the appellant had an opportunity to take recourse of the law in accordance with the provisions of Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act,  which provides –

          “1. Except as otherwise expressly provide in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telephone 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 and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially 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-Section (1) shall be conclusive between the party to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court”.

          The fact remains that the appellant never took recourse of law in accordance with the provisions of Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.  Therefore, unless the outstanding bill or dues is paid certainly it cannot be said that the OP/respondent was deficient in rendering services to the appellant/complainant.  The Ld. District Forum has rightly observed – “there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant will not be entitled to get any compensation as sought for”.  The said order based on proper reasoning, I do not find any reason to differ with the view adopted by the Ld. District Forum.

          After giving due consideration to the submission advanced by the parties and on perusal of the record, I have no hesitation to hold that the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

          Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed on contest.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

          The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I for information.