State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Idea Cellular Ltd. vs Sh. O.P. Kohli on 1 December, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 33 / 2009
Idea Cellular Ltd.
having its Zonal Office at 24-A, New Cantt. Road
Dehradun through its Assistant Manager (Legal)
Sh. Pankaj Kumar S/o late Sh. I.P. Singh
R/o A-68, Sector-64, Noida, U.P.
......Revisionist / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. O.P. Kohli
R/o 488, Parmarth Niketan, P.O. Swargashram
Rishikesh, District Dehradun
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Shashi Khanna, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist
Respondent in person
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 01/12/2010
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
Order challenged is dated 29.09.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 55 of 2009, by way of this revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the opposite party No. 1, whose plea that the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority, has been rejected.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the complainant - respondent in person, we may state at the outset that the order impugned being passed in exercise of the jurisdiction not vested in the District Forum, the same is liable to be set aside and the 2 consumer complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed per force the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another; (2009) 8 SCC 481 = III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC).
3. The reasons for our decision are that the dispute raised in the consumer complaint pertain to non-providing of service by the telegraph operator, with whom the required amount stand deposited on behalf of the complainant and on account of wide reach of the provision of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885, such a dispute concerning telegraph line need to be resolved by arbitration proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom (supra), observed as under:
"In our opinion, when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7B of the Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, is by implication, barred."
4. In the face of the above fact, we don't find force in the submission of the complainant and also the observation made by the District Forum in the impugned order that the dispute between the parties pertain to unfair trade practice and, as such, the same could very well be resolved by resorting to the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, irrespective of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this connection, it shall not be out of place to reiterate that the complainant laid claim for refund of Rs. 2,600/- and further sum of Rs. 185/- for not providing the telegraph service assured by the service provider and the reliefs claimed do indicate that not only the controversy pertain to the amount chargeable for providing telegraph service, but also concerning the telegraph line provided by the service 3 provider to the complainant. In other words, the dispute fall under the wide reach of the provision of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act.
5. In the face of the facts of the case, we also see no merit in the submission that the dispute between the subscriber and private mobile operator, will not be covered under the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the dispute, thus, raised between the parties in this case, would be adjudicable by Consumer Fora. We may also refer to the order dated 21.05.2010 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1703 of 2010; Prakash Verma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. and another, pressed into service by the learned counsel for the revisionist in support of the contention that the dispute between the subscriber and private mobile operator has to be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom (supra). Special Leave Petition against the said order of the National Commission, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 01.10.2010, as is evident from the copy of the order placed on record by the revisionist.
6. In view of above, the order impugned dated 29.09.2009 being passed in exercise of the jurisdiction not vested in the District Forum, the same is hereby set aside and the revision petition is allowed and the dispute between the parties being not adjudicable under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, the consumer complaint No. 55 of 2009 is dismissed. The complainant shall have the option to resort to the arbitration proceedings for adjudication of the dispute with the service provider under the provisions of the Telegraph Act. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K