By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case of complainant is that the complainant availed a land phone connection on 1/3/06 for an amount of Rs.2,200/- from 1st respondent. After availing the connection complainant used if for a short period and surrendered the same to 1st respondent. At the time of availing the connection the 1st respondent taken a deposit of Rs.1,000/- beyond the price of the said telephone from the complainant promising to return the amount as and when the telephone is surrendered. Believing the promise complainant surrendered the telephone connection. After surrendering the connection complainant demanded the deposited amount of Rs.1,000/-. But the 1st respondent did not return the amount. The complainant is a poor farmer, he cannot spare Rs.1,000/-. The act of respondent is deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of 2nd respondent is to the effect that the complaint is not legally maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No.7687/2004, it was held that the remedy available for the consumer is to resort the proceedings under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Hence the complaint will not lie before the Forum.
3.The 1st respondent remained exparte.
4. The complaint is filed against the Reliance Communications to get return of deposit of Rs.1,000/- which had been taken by 1st respondent at the time of availing telephone connection. The complainant did not adduce oral evidence. But Exhibits P1 to P3 documents were marked from his side. The 2nd respondent filed its counter by only challenging the maintainability of the complaint before the Consumer Fora.
5. In Civil appeal No.7687 of 2004 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when there is a special remedy provided in regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills etc the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. So this is applicable to private agencies also. The dictum laid down in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 will be applicable in this case and the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The complainant can approach the arbitrator.
6. In the result the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable with a direction to approach the arbitrator within two months. Meanwhile the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the complainant.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 9th day of February 2012.
