Date of filing   :   03-05-2012 

                                                                            Date of order  :    16   -08-2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.144/2012

                         Dated this, the    16th    day of   August    2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                      : MEMBER

SMT. K.G.BEENA                                        : MEMBER

Balakrishnan, S/o. Raman.M.,                                 } Complainant

R/at UP.IX.602A,

Kannikulangara House,

Udma.Po. 671319, Hosdurg Taluk,

Kasaragod.Dt.

(In Person)

1. The General Manager, BSNL,                             } Opposite parties

     South Bazar, Kannur.2.

2. The Chief Accounts Officer (TR),

     Telephone Bhavan, Kasaragod. 671121.

3. Divisional Engineer, BSNL,

    Kanhangad. 671315.

4. Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL,

    Udma Exchange, Udma. 671319.

                                                            O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            Case of the complainant bereft of unnecessaries is that his telephone No.UDM 2239284 provided by opposite parties is not working since one year after the Udma-Bevur road construction has commenced, though they are very prompt in issuing bills.  His complaint seeking rectification of defect heeded no result. 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  have  no contention on merits as against the allegation raised by the complainant.

3.         Heard both sides.

            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.

4.         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/