Judgment:
Oral Order:
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal arises out of order/award dated 24/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.76/2008 Shri S.D. Buddhisagar V/s. The General Manager, Telecom, B.S.N.L. Nashik and Ors. passed by District Consumer Forum Nashik (Forum below in short).
The admitted facts are that the appellant/complainant Mr.S.D. Buddhisagar is an employee of B.S.N.L. and in such a capacity, service phone was provided to him. When he was transferred to other place, he made an application to surrender the service connection and requested to continue the same phone as a private phone. Said request was subsequently stood rejected. The Department also issued telephone consumption bill apparently because after the complainant left the destination on transfer the concession of phone facility to the employee at Nashik was no more available to him. Thereafter, this consumer complaint is filed challenging the said bill.
Forum below by impugned order referring to Clause No.7(b) of the Telegraph Act, 1985 held that the complaint could not be entertained before it considering the arbitration clause and thus dismissed the complaint awarding cost of Rs.5,000/- to the O.Ps. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is filed by org. complainant.
Admit. We heard Mr.V.B. Nashikkar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.W.S. Birole, Advocate h/f. Mrs.N.V. Masurkar, Advocate for the respondents forthwith with consent of both the parties.
Perused the papers.
Admittedly, the telephone connection (in respect of which a disputed bill was issued) subsequent for a period prior to his transfer was not provided to him as a regular subscriber but as a facility extended as per his service condition. Therefore, there is no element of hiring of any service from the department. Besides this, it is tried to be argued on behalf of the appellant that after his transfer, he made a request to the department to transfer the said service telephone connection as his private telephone connection and accordingly he paid deposit as per demand notice. The department turned down the request of the complainant to convert service connection into private connection and informed him accordingly, though quite late in the year 2007. At no point of time, request of the complainant was accepted by the department to convert the service connection into private connection. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that at any one point of time he has hired services of the department and as such he cannot be held as a âconsumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This cannot be a consumer dispute. It is a dispute per se between employee and employer relating to the charges leveled on account of use of telephone connection beyond the period when the employee left the destination on transfer but continued to use the said telephone facility. Thus, though we do not find ourselves in agreement with the Forum below on the ground of not having jurisdiction due to arbitration clause, we find it futile to entertain this appeal since it is not a consumer dispute. We find ourselves not in agreement with the forum below to grant costs of Rs.5,000/- to the O.Ps. The action is arbitrary considering the submissions made by the parties and the fact of absence of malice on the part of the complainant. Thus holding accordingly, we pass following order :-
Order:
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The impugned order dated 24/10/2008 to the extent as to award of costs of Rs.5,000/- is set aside.
3. Misc. Appl. No.2231/2008, for stay stands disposed of as infructuous.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.