KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.1024/04

JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2010

PRESENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                        --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      General Manager

BSNL, Office of the General Manager

Panchama School Road,

Calicut.

2.      The Divisional Engineer,                 --  APPELLANTS

BSNL. Perambra,

Kozhikode Disrict.

3.      The Junior Telecom Officer,

BSNL, Chakkittappara,

Kozhikode District.

             (By Adv.G.S.Prakash)

                   Vs.

Viju.C.D(Convenor)

Chakkittappara Telephone Users Forum

Post-Muthucaud,                                       --  RESPONDENT

Kozhikode District.

  (By Adv.P.S.Murali)

                                             JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

       Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.246/03.  The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing telephone connection to the complainant/consumer.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the landline could not be given to the complainant/consumer because it was not technically feasible and so wireless telephone connection was given to the complainant.

       2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and 2 witnesses were examined on his side as PWs 2 and 3.  Exts. A1 to A13 documents were marked on the side of the complainant.  Exts.B1 to B7 documents were produced and marked on the side of opposite parties.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 8^th October 2004 allowing the complaint and thereby directing the opposite parties to replace the wireless telephone connection by providing the land phone connection to the complainant.  It is against this said order, the present appeal is preferred.

       3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for respondent/complainant.  The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the decision rendered by Hon. Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 7687/04 dated 1.9.09 and submitted that the matter ought to have been referred to an arbitrator as  provided under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act.  The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the provisions of Section 7 (B) of the Indian Telegraph Act.  It is a settled position that the dispute regarding the telephone connection is to be decided by an arbitrator as provided under Section 7 (B) of the Indian Telegraph Act.  So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is legally unsustainable.  Hence the same is set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 8.10.04 passed by CDRF, Kozhikode in OP 246/03 is set aside in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon. Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 7687/04.

 M.V.VISWANATHAN  --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

s/L