State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The General Manager (Telecom), Bharat ... vs Mr. Anil Gupta on 20 April, 2010
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/138 DATE OF FILING : 03.04.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 20.04.2010 APPELLANTS 1. The General Manager (Telecom) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. College Para, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road Siliguri, Dist. Darjeeling. 2. The Divisional Engineer Hills Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Darjeeling. 3. S.D.E. (PRO) Office of the General Manager (Telecom) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Siliguri Dist. Darjeeling. 4. The D.G.M.(OP), B.S.N.L. West Bengal Telecom Circle Kolkata-700 001. RESPONDENTS Mr. Anil Gupta S/o Mr. L.P.Gupta Judge Bazar, Opp. Lucky Centre Dist. Darjeeling. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.Sikdar, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: None : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 7.1.09 passed by Darjeeling District Consumer Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 12/D/08 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint with a direction upon the Ops to send the revised bills for the month of May, 2006, June, 2006, February, 2007, August, 2007 and January, 2008 in average rate of Rs. 1523/- and the bills sent by the OP for the periods w.e.f. 1st March, 2008 to the complainant are not valid and the complainant need not pay the same.
The complainant/Respondents case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant was enjoying internet facility at his internet caf at Judge Bazar, Darjeeling, through his BSNL landline connection and in the process the complainant was having broadband facilities under business plan of Rs. 700/- w.e.f. March, 2006.
It was the specific case of the complainant that on and from March, 2006 the complainant started receiving inflated bills, for which the complainant initially made some verbal complaints and thereafter submitted a complaint in writing to the BSNL authorities. As there was no relief the complainant had to file consumer complaint before the Ld. Consumer Court for proper redressal.
The Ops/Appellants entered appearance and contested the consumer complaint by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the consumer complaint contending inter alia that the complainant was not a consumer and that the consumer complaint was not maintainable under the law. The provisions of Indian Telegraph Act does not permit a consumer like the present complainant to avail relief before the Consumer Court and that the consumer complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the complaint case has observed that the complainant was a consumer under the Act and that there was deficiency in service at the instance of the Appellants/OPs and accordingly disposed of the consumer complaint in favour of the complainant/Respondent in the manner as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing the Respondent did not appear and contest the present Appeal, as a result of which the Appeal was heard ex parte. At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellants that in this case the Ld. District Forum has utterly failed to appreciate the real controversy between the parties and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision which is not at all sustainable under the law. While elaborating his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has urged before us that in this case it is an admitted position that the Complainant/Respondent put forward a case to the effect that he was receiving inflated bills, for which he alleged deficiency in service at the instance of the Appellants/Ops and as his requests were not duly considered by the Appellants/Ops the consumer complaint was filed. The Appellants/Ops, on the other hand, has put forward a case to the effect that there was no deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops and that the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act does not permit a consumer court to accept and resolve any dispute of the present nature and that the consumer complaint was liable to be dismissed.
From the materials on record and also after perusal of the impugned judgement we find that there is much substance in the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants. In this regard, we find that the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act is very much relevant wherein it has been provided S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes :-
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person on whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section.
(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-s.(1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court.
Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act we find that there is practically no jurisdiction vested upon a Consumer Court to try and decide a dispute of present nature as involved in the present Appeal. In this regard the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in a decision reported in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another, can be referred to, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held, when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bill, then the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by application barred. If that be the legal position, we are of considered opinion that the manner in which the Ld. District Forum has appreciated the case of the parties and the disputes of the consumer complaint with a direction upon the Ops/Appellants to submit average bills for the disputed period after holding that certain bills raised by the Appellants/Ops being not valid, is not at all sustainable under the law. Considering the present matter in the light of above observation we find merit in the present Appeal, which, in our opinion, should be allowed. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed ex parte without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement is set aside.
However, we direct the Ops/Appellants to send the dispute before the appropriate arbitration forum as provided U/S 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act for resolving the dispute between the parties as per provisions laid down thereunder. While referring the dispute before the arbitration authority the Appellants must inform the complainant/Respondent in writing in this regard.
MEMBER MEMBER