COMPLAINT FILED: 27.06.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 07.01.2010 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 07th JANUARY 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1505/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. K.S. Sebastian,<br /> Aged about 50 years,<br /> S/o Sri. K.J. Sebastian,<br /> Managing Partner,<br /> Mecon Engineering,<br /> Opp: I.I.M.,<br /> Bannerughatta Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 076.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. N.R. Nagaraj<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Area Manager,<br /> Bangalore Telecom District,<br /> B.S.N.L.,<br /> Jayanagar, 5th Block,<br /> Bangalore – 560 082.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. K. Prakash Rao <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to reconnect telephone No.26595867 and to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- with costs of litigation on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant requested OP to transfer the existing telephone bearing No.25595867, from his residence to office premises, through his letter dated 14.02.2008. Acting on the said letter OP disconnected the telephone of the home, instead of transferring the existing number; OP allotted entirely a new number which the complainant refused to accept. The complainant approached OP and submitted letter dated 25.03.2008 stating that if the old number is not being retained; the line would be surrendered. Subsequently OP allotted the same number and line was connected sometime during the last week of March – 2008. The telephone had been working satisfactorily from last week of March – 2008 from the office premises, but within two months the telephone was disconnected by the OP. On enquiry OP revealed that the complainant is due to pay Rs.176/- towards bill amount in respect of telephone No.26481058. When the complainant brought to the notice of OP that the said line was never connected to the office nor it was used even for a single call nor the said line belongs to him, the line was reconnected and the regular No.26595867 became active. Again during October – 2008 OP disconnected the telephone of the complainant, on further enquiry it was revealed that non payment of bill amount of Rs.176/- in respect of non-installed telephone, the present line is being disconnected. Then again the complainant had to do the all circus for getting the line back active. The complainant has spent innumerable telephone calls in the resolving the issue with the OP, OP has been causing unnecessary and unwarranted harassment and was effected mental peace apart from harming the business reputation of the complainant. OP disconnected the line again on 19.12.2008 in respect of telephone No.26595867. The complainant by his letter dated 20.12.2008 apprised OP of the actual facts, the complainant has paid all the bills, the said telephone remains disconnected for no fault of the complainant. OP has caused mental harassment and loss apart from inconvenience to the customers and clients of complainant by disconnecting telephone line. Thus the complainant has claimed the reliefs by filing this complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable, the same is liable to be dismissed. The telephone bearing No.25595867 was allotted in the name of M/s Bright & Co., On request the same was shifted from residence address to the office premises of the complainant with different indicator No. i.e., 26481058. On request original telephone number was re-allotted on 29.03.2008. This service connection was disconnected for non-payment of dues to the tune of Rs.176/- in respect of telephone No.26481058 which was allotted to the complainant. Further the bill was cancelled since the new telephone number as per the customer had not worked at the new address. Also the bill for DNP period in respect of 26595867 is waived and reconnection issued. The complainant without exhausting all the available channels in the department for redressal of grievance has approached this Forum. There is no deficiency of service. Telephone bearing No.26595867 came to the disconnected for non payment of the dues of Rs.176/- in respect of telephone bearing No.26481058 which was extended to the complainant and used by complainant only. However in view of the complainant’s information that the telephone did not work, the bill of Rs.176/- is already waived off, hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence in support of complaint averments and produced documents. The Assistant Manager of OP filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. <br /> <br /> 5. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for complainant submitted, the complainant is not pressing, first prayer seeking direction to reconnect the telephone and is confining only with regard to second prayer to award damages. <br /> <br /> 6. The learned counsel for OP relied on the principles laid down in 2009 AIR SCW 5631 General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another contending that the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum, Section 7-B of Telegraph Act provides remedy for such disputes; the jurisdiction of the Forum is impliedly barred. <br /> <br /> 7. Arguments heard on both sides. Point for consideration is: <br /> <br /> Point No.1: Whether the Forum has no jurisdiction to<br /> decide the dispute arisen between the<br /> parties?<br /> <br /> 8. We record our finding:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In affirmative.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 9. As per the complaint averments at the request of the complainant, the existing telephone bearing No.25595867 was shifted from his residence to the office premises by OP. While shifting the telephone a new number was giving for the telephone shifted to office; the complainant insisted for the old number only then the new number was cancelled and the earlier old number was restored. In the meanwhile it appears that telephone bill of Rs.176/- was issued in respect of the new telephone line connected to the office, but later when it was represented that new telephone was not at all fixed to the office and same was not used OP waived that bill amount of Rs.176/-. It appears that in the meanwhile before waiving that amount of Rs.176/- OP has disconnected the telephone connection of the office of the complainant for non payment of the arrears of bill of Rs.176/- relating to the new number which was not at all used. The complainant sought for the relief to reconnect the telephone No.25595867 and for damages of Rs.50,000/-.<br /> <br /> 10. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the relief sought for reconnection of the telephone is not pressed; only the complainant is confining the relief to pay damages of Rs.50,000/-.<br /> <br /> 11. The learned counsel of the OP contended that in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another the jurisdiction of this Forum is impliedly barred; the complaint is not maintainable. It is contended that any dispute concerning any telephone line; appliance or apparatus arisen between the parties is to be decided by arbitrator as provided under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act; as such the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. <br /> <br /> It is contended for the complainant that; there is no dispute regarding the disconnection of the telephone line provided to the office of the complainant, as disconnection is admitted by OP in the version; there is nothing to arbitrate hence the question of referring the parties to arbitration does not arise; Section 7-B of Telegraph Act is not applicable. In support of the same reliance was placed on the principles laid down in AIR 1979 Delhi page 58 M/s National Small Industries Corporation V/s Punjab T.P & M Industries. In our view the question as to whether the disconnection of telephone line provided to the office of the complainant was legal or illegal is a matter to be decided by the arbitrator as provided under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. In case if the disconnection was held to be illegal then only the question of awarding any compensation or damages claimed in the complaint arises. The Apex Court in the above said ruling General Manager, Telecom V/s M.Krishnan and another held that disputes about telephone bills beyond the jurisdiction of Forums; Telegraph Act being special Act overrides 1986 Act. At para 6 of the judgement, the Apex Court observed that there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the dispute arisen between the parties with regard to the disconnection of telephone line and to award damages is to be decided by an arbitrator as provided under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. Therefore we are of the view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to resolve the dispute arisen between the parties. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed; holding that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute arisen between the parties. <br /> <br /> In view of nature of dispute no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 7th day of January 2010) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> s.n.m. <br />