G.V. Murali Krishna, S/o. Upender Rao, R/o. Bank Colony, Khammam presently residing at Bangalore City. - Complainant(s)
Versus
The General Manager, B.S.N.L, Telecom District, Khammam & another - Opp.Party(s)
V. Srinivasa Chandra Sekhar, advocate, Khammam.
21 Jul 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/92
G.V. Murali Krishna, S/o. Upender Rao, R/o. Bank Colony, Khammam presently residing at Bangalore City.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The General Manager, B.S.N.L, Telecom District, Khammam & another
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 21st day of July, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha B.Sc. B.L. - Member 3. Sri R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc. L.L.B - Member C.C.No.92/2009 Between: . G.V,Murali Krishna, s/o.Upender Rao, age: 33 years, occu:Private employee, R/o.Bank colony, Khammam presently at Banglore city Complainant and 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprises), Khammam Telecom District, rep. by its General Manager, Khammam 2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprises) Khammam Telecom District, rep. by its Accounts Officer (TR), Khammam. Opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.V.S.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.P.Amar Chand, Advocate for opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri Vijay Kumar, President) This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that in the year 2005 the complainant had taken Telephone connection No.YXR 222114 and also taken Broadband connection in the month of March, 2008, he paid the telephone bills without default and the average bill for two months in around Rs.2,000/- to 2,500/-. In the month of October, 2008 the complainant requested to stop the broadband connection by paying the bills upto 30-9-2008 and opted for conversion of plan from combo to 2160 AU plan, paid the amount of Rs.2,427/- demanded by the opposite parties for conversion. To the sudden surprise of the complainant, the opposite party issued a bill, dt.4-12-2008 demanding to pay Rs.20,201/- for the period from October, 2008 to 24th October, 2008 including call charges of Rs.1,306/- and the rest of the amount towards Broadband usage nearly amounting to Rs.17,623/-. Immediately the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to rectify the excessive bill, but they did not rectify the bill and disconnected the service. Even though he made many representations to the opposite parties to correct the mistake crept in the bill, dt.4-10-2008 and to issue fresh bill, they paid deaf ear, and issued a notice to the fathers address of the complainant demanding to pay Rs.17,451/- without complying request of the complainant. Hence, the complaint. On presenting the complaint, a notice is ordered to the opposite party. On behalf of the opposite party, Sri.P.Amarchand, Advocate filed vakalath for opposite parties No.1 and 2. Inspite of giving a number of adjournments, he did not choose to file counter. Heard the counsel for complainant. In a similar case, the Honble Supreme Court vide its Judgment, 8-9-2009, in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 has decided 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. The section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act provides for resolution of consumer disputes through arbitration. In the light of the above decision, the complaint is disposed of, directing the complainant to approach the arbitrator for redressal of his grievance. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 21st day of July, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
