The South Goa consumer disputes redressal forum on Monday, held that it had no jurisdiction over a telecom service dispute against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in view of a supreme court judgment.
However, complaints against private telecom service providers can be filed before the forum, it stated.
While stating that the apex court judgment applies to all pending consumer complaints against BSNL, the forum disposed of six cases against the government telecom service provider pending since 2002.
The forum also granted liberty to the parties to refer their disputes against BSNL, subject to the provisions of law, to arbitrators as contemplated under the supreme court judgment.
The Supreme Court in 2009, in the General Manager, Telecom, versus M Krishnan case, involving BSNL as a party, had ended the jurisdiction of consumer courts to entertain disputes relating to the telecom service provider.
It ordered that these disputes be resolved through arbitration provided under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
In view of the judgment of the apex court, the forum had on April 15, 2010, heard final arguments to decide its jurisdiction in telecom matters.
The lawyers of BSNL, private telecom service providers and consumers had submitted their views in the matter before the forum.
Twenty-two telecom cases were pending before the forum which pertained to issues ranging from dropped calls and over-charging of customers to unwanted value-added charges and false calls. The complaints were against mobile service providers, internet service providers, broadband service providers, DTH operators, cable TV operators and landline service providers.
Relying on the Punjab State Commission judgment in the Spice Communication Pvt Ltd case, the forum held that private service providers, operators and companies are beyond the scope of the apex court judgment and as such, all such cases shall continue to be heard on merits by the forum.
Around 16 cases against various private operators are lying before this forum
The commission had also noted in its order that “the private service providers are the licencees to operate mobile lines under section 4 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and therefore they cannot be equated with the director general of posts and telegraphs nor can they be termed as officers appointed by the director general of posts and telegraphs to discharge the functions of the telegraph authority.
“They are only the licencees, therefore any dispute between the licencee and their consumer is not covered by provisions of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885,” the Punjab State Commission had observed.
Before parting with the judgment, forum president Jagdish Prabhudessai and member Kala Dalal observed that they were aware of the general anxiety and apparent dissatisfaction in the minds of consumers and NGOs after the apex court judgment.
“A submission was made before us that upon the representations received from various NGOs, the central government is seriously thinking of making suitable amendments to the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885,” said the forum.
This is to bring the consumer disputes alternatively within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986., the forum further said.
“With utmost respect we heard the submission that Parliament is seriously thinking of making necessary amendments to the existing laws concerned so as to best protect the interests of the consumers at large.
“However, the consumer forum cannot wait till then. We do justice in accordance with the law as it stands today,” stated the forum in its order on Monday.
Times of India