State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bsnl vs V.Rangaiah on 9 November, 2009
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No. 111 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.No.34 OF 2006 DISTRICT FORUM-II TIRUPATI. Between: 1. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telecom District, Tirupati 2. The Accounts Officer (OSP) O/o General Manager, BSNL, Telecom District Tirupati Appellants/opposite parties A N D Sri V.Rangaiah S/o Sri Subbaiah aged about 53 years, Occ:Employee R/o H.No.18-2-268/11, Abbanna Colony Tirupati, Chittoor District Respondent/complainant Counsel for the appellants Sri C.Jacob Counsel for the respondent Sri P.Sudheer Rao QUORUM: SRI K.SATYANAND, PRESIDING MEMBER
& SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER MONDAY THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND NINE Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) *** The appellants are the opposite parties in C.D.No.34 of 2006. The appeal is preferred against the order of the District forum that the spurt in meter reading pertaining to the telephone connection bearing No.2254988 was occurred during the fortnightly period of 15th July 2004 to 31st July 2004 and the same was intimated to the respondent by the bill dated 8.8.2004. After investigation, it was found that the calls were emanated from the telephone connection pertaining to the respondent.
The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that the respondent subscriber of the appellants with telephone connection bearing No.2254988 was issued the telephone bill for the months of June and July 2004 for Rs.6958/-. The respondent complained for spurt in the billing to the appellants on 30.8.2004 as also on 23.11.2004 and 8.3.2005 with a request to verify the bill and adopt average number of net calls for the past six months. The average net calls from the telephone connection of the respondent was Rs.600/- per month and the respondent used to get the bills ranging from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1100/-. The appellants had not considered the request of the respondent and issued final notice dated 27.8.2005 demanding the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.6,023/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.2200/= deposited by the respondent towards the existing bill amount and closed the telephone connection on 22.9.2004 whereon the respondent had got issued a legal notice dated 29.11.2005 requesting the appellants to adopt the average bill basis. The appellants through their reply notice dated 21.12.2005 refused to adopt the average bill basis and insisted on the respondent to pay the excess bill amount.
The appellant no.2 filed written version. The appellant no.1 filed a memo adopting the written version filed by the appellant no.2. it was contended by the appellant no.1 that the telephone connection of the respondent was provided with STD locking facility. The bills issued to the respondent from 8.8.2003 to 8.8.2004 are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill date Gross cost Total amount of the bill inc.int
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 08.08.2003 1721.00 2382.00
2. 08.10.2003 731.00 1153.00
3. 08.12.2003 668.00 1012.00
4. 08.02.2004 710.00 1072.00
5. 08.04.2004 638.00 982.00
6. 08.06.2004 678.00 1029.00
7. 08.08.2004 5252.00 6958.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill dated 8.8.2004 was issued for an amount of Rs.6,958/-. The respondent complained against the amount mentioned in the bill and on 1.9.2004 the appellants gave reply to the respondent The Divisional Engineer, Telephone Exchange was asked to investigate the matter and the respondent was requested to pay the bill pending investigation to avoid disconnection. If a subscriber had not paid the bill, his telephone connection will be disconnected. On 22.9.2004 the telephone connection of the respondent was disconnected as he had not paid the bill. The complaint lodged by the respondent investigated by the exchange authority indoor and also outdoor staff and submitted a report. No rebate was recommended since the telephone was found to be functioning at indoor plant and also outdoor external equipment. The EMC committee held that there was no spurt in the meter reading to grant any rebate to the respondent and the same was intimated to the respondent through letter dated 22.9.2004.
On request made by the respondent on 23.11.2004 the case was revised and on 20.1.2005 he was informed that the EMC Committee directed to finalize the account and send the final bill to him. On 29.11.2005 the respondent had got issued notice. The appellants have given reply on 21.12.2005. The highest number of calls in the six bills was Rs.1721/- as mentioned in the bill dated 8.8.2003. The telephone connection of the respondent was disconnected on 22.1.2004 by informing him well in advance. The respondent was also informed through letters dated 1.9.2004, 22.9.2004 and 20.1.2005. As per the rules issue of provisional bill based on average six bills is not permissible.
The District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the appellants to revise the bill dated 8.8.2004 on the basis of highest telephone bill during the six months and to restore the telephone connection of the respondent as also the deposit of Rs.2,200/-.
The respondent has filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the appellants Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.
The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants?
2) To what relief?
POINT NO.1 The appellants have challenged the impugned order contending that the bill dated 8.8.2004, Ex.A1 was issued on the basis of the calls made by the respondent and his family member during the relevant period. The District Forum has not only given a direction to the appellant to revise the bill but also it has directed the appellants to restore the telephone connection as also to restore the amount of Rs.2200/- towards security deposit. Before entering the discussion, we feel it essential to refer to Section 14 of the TRAI Act which reads as:
14. (1) If a dispute arises, in respect of matters referred to in sub-section (2), among service providers or between service providers and a group of consumers, such disputes shall be adjudicated by a bench constituted by the Chairperson and such bench shall consist of two members;
Provided that if the members of the bench differ on any point or points they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to a third member for hearing on such point or points and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of that member.
(2) The bench constituted under sub-section (1) shall exercise, on and from the appointed day all such jurisdiction , powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court on any matter relating to-
i.
technical compatibility and inter-connections between service providers;
ii.
revenue sharing arrangements between different service providers;
iii.
quality of telecommunication services and interest of consumers;
Provided that nothing in sub-section shall apply in respect of matters relating to-
a. the monopolistic trade practice, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission established under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969;
b. the complaint of an individual consumer maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;
Therefore, a complaint filed by an individual can be maintainable before a Consumer Forum.
However, a group consumers cannot maintain complaint before the Consumer forum in view of the mandate of Sec.14(1) of TRAI Act. The TRAI Act had come into force from the month of January, 1997. Section 14(1) of TRAI Act has reference to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enabling an individual consumer to approach the consumer forum for redressal of his grievance relating to telecommunication service as mentioned in Sec.1(k) of the TRAI Act which include the service of any description (including electronic mail, voice mail, data services, audio tex service, video tex services, radio paging and cellular mobile telephone services) which is made available to users by means of any transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature, by wire, radio, visual or other electro-magnetic means but shall not include broadcasting services.
The Honble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishna and another held that in view of a special remedy provided in Sec.7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills the remedy under C.P.Act is by implication barred. The Apex Court has referred to Sec.7B of Telegraph Act which reads as under:
7B. Arbitration of disputes (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially 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-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court.] The Supreme Court also upheld the power of the telegraph authority to disconnect a telephone connection in terms of Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules which empowers the telegraph authorities to disconnect the telephone connection for default of payment.
In view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court and in the light of Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules, we hold that the appellants are empowered by virtue rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules to disconnect the telephone connection for default in payment of the bills and the Consumer Fora are precluded from entertaining any complaint in the matter relating to the Telecom Services. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District forum consequently the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt. 09.11.2009 KMK