State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer Unity & Trust Society, ... vs The Cao/Tr South, C.T.D., Bharat ... on 3 June, 2013
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/399/2012 (Arisen out of Order dated 25/05/2012 in Case No.CC/17/2011 of Unit-I, Kolkata) DATE OF FILING : 16.07.2012 DATE OF ORDER: 03.06.2013 APPELLANT : CONSUMER UNITY & TRUST SOCIEITY CALCUTTA RESOURCE CENTRE 3, Suren Tagore Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata 700 019, West Bengal. RESPONDENTS : 1. The CAO/TR South, C.T.D./Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 62, Ballygunge Place, Kolkata 700 019, West Bengal AND 2. Nodal, Appellate and the CGM Office, The Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Telephone Bhawan, 2nd Floor, 34,B.B.D. Bag Kolkata 700 001. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER :
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya.
HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag.
FOR THE APPELLANT :
1. Mr. Salil Dasgupta, Ld. Advocate, FOR THE RESPONDENTS :
1. Mr. P.R. Bakshi, Ld. Adcoate ________________________________________________________________________ Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.05.2012 in Case No. 17/2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal.
Complainants case, in short, is that it is a registered NGO and its Resource Centre in Kolkata is having Broadband services of BSNL, presently under Phone No.2460-4985 and was regularly receiving bills of not more than Rs.3,000/-. But, in the month of November, 2010, they received a bill of Broadband service amounting to Rs.1,29,038/- for the bill period of October, 2010 with extra Broadband usage charges shown as Rs.1,15,734.50 for the first time, which if known earlier, they would have shifted to the Unlimited Business Plan of 3300 with additional charges of Rs.300/- per month. Accordingly, they wrote to the BSNL on 07.12.2010 to send a revised bill without extra charges of Broadband and also requested them to change the existing Plan to Unlimited Business Plan 3300. In response, they sent a revised bill of Rs.35,037/- on 09.12.2010 under their Samadan Option-I, but did not change the existing Plan. Being unable to register complaint to the Customer Care Centre, the Complainant wrote a complaint letter on 16.12.2010 to the Grievance Nodal Officer of BSNL, who being absent, it was forwarded to the Chief General Manager of BSNL on 04.01.2011, stating that they cannot reduce the amount further and that non-payment by the Complainant would prompt them to initiate legal action against the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint case on certain reliefs on similar terms.
It has been the case of the OPs in their W.V., briefly stated, is that the complaint case is not maintainable in law and facts, having no cause of action and that Complainant is a subscriber of the OP under No. 2460-4985 with Broadband Plan under Business 3000, but did not apply to the Commercial Officer (South) to change the Broadband Plan from Business 3000 to UL Business Plan 3300, but copy of the letter dated 07.12.2010 addressed to C.G.M., Calcutta Telephones was sent to the Commercial Officer (South) on 20.12.2010 for change of Plan and work order was issued and executed with effect from 01.03.2011. The Complainant had applied for revision of the disputed amount to Rs.1,29,038/- with possible rebate vide letter dated 07.12.2010, which was revised under Samadhan Option-I Scheme to Rs.35,037/-, but the Complainant did not pay the same. Further, the Ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present alleged disputes which are completely billing disputes. The mandatory provision is for statutory arbitration provided under Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and rules framed thereunder and to prefer arbitration to the Arbitrator accordingly. So, the speculative complaint be dismissed with cost by directing the Complainant to pay outstanding bills and adequate cost by way of compensation for harassment.
It is to be considered and seen as to whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality, infirmity and/or material irregularity.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that it is a registered non-profit NGO and that there had been no default of the Appellant in paying bills of Broadband service of the Respondents prior to October, 2010, but for the unusual billing of Rs.1,29,038/- for the period of October, 2010, showing usage charges of Rs.1,15,734.50, which is extraordinary, arbitrary and unreasonable, the dispute arose, which culminated in filing the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata. But, the said Ld. District Forum has dismissed the complaint case on the ground of the specific provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which provides for adjudication by arbitrator. It simply cannot take away the rights and benefits of the harassed consumer as enshrined by Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has submitted that since there is a special statute to govern the matter, the same will be applicable in the matter in view of the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and there shall be no application of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in favour of the consumer. The matter required technical expertise, as to whether the impugned bill is correct or incorrect and so the necessity of arbitration as stipulated in Section 7B, and the same is to the benefit of all concerned, including the consumer. The application of Section 7B of the Act will go to maintain well relationship between the parties, namely, BSNL and the consumers. The Honble Supreme Court has also specifically laid down observance of the provisions of Section 7B in such matters.
In view of the direction of the Honble supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan and Anr., Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, reported in AIR 2010 SC 90, that Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is the special remedy regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, the remedy in Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred, and subsequently the same has been followed by the Honble National Commission in its decision in the case of Prakash Verma vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr. in RP No. 1703/2010, as cited by the Ld. District forum, there stands no other way but to resort to Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in this kind of dispute regarding telephone bills. So, there is no room to agitate the same in this appeal. There is thus no legal or material infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on contest against the Respondents. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER