State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sumanbai Pandurang Shelke vs Telecom Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam ... on 15 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSASL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD . Date of filing : 29.04.2008 Date of Order : 15.01.2010 FIRST APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2008 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 194 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: OSMANABAD. Smt. Sumanbai Pandurang Shelke R/o. Behind Panchayat Samiti, Papnas Vibhag Tuljapur, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. Appellant -VERSUS- 1. Telecom Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Tuljapur, 2. Telecom Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Main Office, Osmanabad. Respondents Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Judicial Member. Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member. Present : None appeared on behalf of appellant Adv. Shri. Jayant Chitnis, for the respondent. :: ORAL ORDER :
:
Per Shri S. G. Deshmukh, Hon`ble Judicial Member
1. The present appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 08.02.2008 in complaint case No. 194/2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Osmanabad.
2. The appellant/complainants case before the Forum is that, she was getting the bill of Rs. 250/- per month of his telephone connection. It is contended that, she received the bill of Rs.7,814/- for the period 01.04.2007 to 30.04.2007. Thus, she approached the Forum for cancellation of the bill in question.
3. The respondent appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that, the bills are issued by the process of computer; there is no possibility of the mistake. The bills given are correct.
4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties dismissed the complaint.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order original complainant came in appeal.
6. Notice was issued to the respondent. Learned counsel Shri. Jayant Chitnis, appeared for the respondent. None appeared on behalf of appellant for admission hearing.
We perused the papers. Appeal is filed along with the application for condonation of the delay. The delay caused is shown to be of 50 days. It is mentioned in the application that, the delay is caused due to illness of complainant, as she was under medical treatment for hypertension and Arthritis of both knee joints from 01.02.2008 to 22.04.2008. It is also mentioned that, the delay is not intentional. The application is supported by the certificate of the doctor which shows that, she was under treatment for hypertension and Arthritis of both knee joints from 01.02.2008 to 22.04.2008. Delay is properly explained. We condone the delay.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, the remedy under C. P. Act is barred as there is a specific provision provided in Indian Telegraph Act. The learned counsel submitted that, it is settled law; Special law overrides the general law. The learned counsel in that respect relied on General Manager, Telecom V/s. M. Krishnan & Another, reported in Complete Digest SSC 01.
8. We perused the papers. The appellant has come for cancellation of the bill alleging to be excessive. In view of the ratio in M. Krishnan case, the Forum under C. P. Act has no jurisdiction. Appeal is required to be dismissed on this count. We pass following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties.
(Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh) Member Presiding Judicial Member Kalyankar