State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Nnajmuddin H. Khopoliwala vs Telecom District Engineer Department ... on 10 March, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1601 OF 1998 Date of filing : 12/08/1998 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 121 OF 1995 Date of order : 10/03/2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : RAIGAD Shri Nnajmuddin H. Khopoliwala Reliable Trading Company Bazaar Peth, Khopoli 410 203. Appellant/org. complainant V/s. 1. Telecom District Engineer Department of Telecom Mohta Market, 4th floor, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Accounts Officer (TRA) Department of Telecom Mohta Market, 4th floor, 3. Sub-Divisional Officer Department of Telecom Telecom Centre, Bombay-Pune Highway, Khopoli 410 203. Respondents/org. O.Ps. Quorum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member Appearance : Shri Shirish Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.R. Patange, Representative of the respondents.
-: ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by dismissal of complaint by District Consumer Forum Raigad in consumer complaint No.121/1995 by order dated 30/04/1998, org. complainant has filed this appeal.
The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
Complainant is running a shop of Paints and Hardware in Khopoli in the name and style of Reliable Trading Company. Complainant had procured new telephone connection in his shop on 15/03/1993. Complainant alleged that he had not requested for STD facility. He received first telephone bill of Rs.205/- on 01/05/1993.
When he received second bill dated 01/07/1993 for Rs.17,763/- he lodged formal complaint about excess bill and requested for investigation. He then received third bill on 01/09/1993 which was for Rs.79,981/-. This was also excessive as per the complainant. Complainant lodged complaint with the Accounts Telecom Officer of the O.P. He received formal reply that matter was being investigated. Thereafter, he received some bills which according to him were normal one. In the meantime, complainant sent letter to Telephone Department on 25/02/1994. Complainant asked record details of his calls made from his telephone. On 26/05/1994 Telephone Department discontinued his telephone. According to the complainant, action of disconnection of his telephone was patently illegal and unfair and department disconnected another telephone of the complainant which was standing in the name of Hamza Traders at his residence. Telephone Department sent letter dated 03/06/1994 and called upon the complainant to clear outstanding dues of Rs.1,04,046/-. Aggrieved by excessive bills and illegal disconnection of the telephone and another telephone which was installed at his residence standing in the name of Sister Company, he filed consumer complaint and sought some reliefs.
O.P. filed written statement and pleaded that complaint of the complainant is absolutely false and telephone bill was rightly issued to the complainant. Complainant is having hardware business and he has been using his telephone for his business very often. O.P. pleaded that this telephone was given with STD facility as per complainants own request. Therefore, bills were properly issued and complaint should be dismissed with costs.
On considering affidavits and documents placed on record, Forum below held that O.P. was not guilty of deficiency in service in respect of telephone No.62362 and complaint as filed by complainant was within limitation. Forum below held that complainant was having major business of hardware and all though while he has been using telephone and therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation and as such it was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, complainant has filed this appeal.
We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.Shirish Deshpande for the appellant and Mr.S.R. Patange, Representative of the respondent/Company.
We are finding that the order passed by the Forum below is just, proper and sustainable in law simply because appellant received excessive bill that itself is no ground to hold that there has been deficiency in service on the part of Telephone Department (now BSNL). Respondent/Company had issued bills as per reading or as per calls registered by the machine maintained by the Telephone Department. The bills issued on the basis of calls recorded must be deemed to be just and proper and those bills cannot be called in question simply because appellant thought that those bills are excessive or for higher amount. The Telephone Department issued bills as per calls recorded and since appellant is having good amount of business in hardware, he must be using telephone frequently. Moreover, appellant is also having STD facility as has been pleaded by the Telephone Department. So, Forum below rightly dismissed the complaint and we are finding no substance in the appeal preferred by aggrieved complainant.
Moreover, we are also of the view that dispute between Telephone Department and telephone consumer/subscriber is a dispute which is required to be resolved by taking arbitration proceeding. Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act has provided special remedy for resolution of dispute in respect of telephone bills and under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, arbitration of dispute is provided and when there is arbitration clause, parties have to approach Arbitrator to get resolved the dispute between themselves. Parties are not permitted to file consumer complaint where there is arbitration clause. Arbitration clause is provided in the Indian Telegraph Act. This was main plank of argument advanced before us by Mr.Patange, Representative of the respondent/Company. In support of his contention, Representative of the respondent placed on record judgement of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 decided on 01/09/2009 wherein two Judges Bench of the Honble Apex Court clearly held that in respect of dispute between Telephone Company and the consumer special remedy is provided under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act and parties have to invoke said arbitration clause taking dispute to the arbitration as provided in Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act and such dispute cannot be taken to Consumer Fora under Consumer Protection Act,1986 because by implication remedy under Consumer Protection Act,1986 is barred. Relying on this ruling also we hold that appeal as filed by the complainant against dismissal of complaint is devoid of any substance and as such, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal. Hence, the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs.
(S.P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member