Date of filing   :   21-04-2011 

                                                                           Date of order  :    26-06-2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.119/2012

                         Dated this, the  26^th      day of   June    2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                      : MEMBER

SMT. K.G.BEENA                                        : MEMBER

T.V.Kunhikannan,                                                      } Complainant

S/o.Appa, “Chithra Nivas”,

Thaivalappu House, Po.Udma,

Kasaragod.Dt.

( Adv.A.Balakrishnan Nair, Kasaragod)

1. The General Manager, B.S.N.L.              } Opposite parties

     Telecom, Kannur.1.

2. The S.D.O.P,  B.S.N.L,Telecom,

     Kanhangad. 671315,

3. The J.E, B.S.N.L, Telephone Exchange,

     Udma. 671319.

(Ops 1 to 3 in Person)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            The grievance of the complainant in brief is as follows:

            Complainant is the subscriber of telephone connection in2236699 under Udma Exchange. His telephone remained disconnected more than  year at the time of widening the Udma-Bevoori Road. Though road work is over the telephone is going out of order intermittently.  Hence  he made complaints. But no  favourable action taken to rectify the defect.  Hence the complaint.

2.         According to opposite parties the complaint is not maintainable in view of the Arbitration clause contained  in the Indian Telegraph Act.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of General Manager, Telecom V. M.Krishnan   Appeal No.CA 7687/2004 has held that in case of disputes the telephone subscriber has to approach the arbitrator in view of Sec 7B of the Telegraph Act and Consumer Disputes  Redressal Fora   have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints against telegraph authorities. The opposite parties  has no contention on merits as against the allegation raised by the complainant.

3.         Heard both sides.

4.         The opposite parties being an essential service provider is bound to prove uninterrupted service round the clock. Any interruption to the said service would amounts to deficiency in service.

5.         But we are unable to grant any relief to the complainant in view of the judgment  of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra.

            Therefore we direct the opposite parties to refer this dispute to a suitable arbitrator within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Failing which they shall pay `5000/- as compensation to the complainant.  There is no order as to costs.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/