State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.D.O.(T) Gurdaspur vs Mohinder Pal Son Of Sh.Daro Ram on 15 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.797 of 2006
Date of institution : 09.06.2006
Date of decision : 15.01.2010
S.D.O.(T) Gurdaspur
...Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Pal son of Sh.Daro Ram, resident of Village Babowal, Jail Road,
Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.3.2006 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Gurdaspur.
Before :-
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Presiding Member.
Sh.Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Sh.G.C.Babbar, Advocate. For the respondent : Sh.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate.
LT.COL.DARSHAN SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDING MEMBER The respondent / complainant (Mohinder Pal) had filed a complaint against the appellants disputing the correctness of the bill for the period from 22.7.2002 to 30.6.2005. The complainant alleged that as against the subscribed rural area rent of Rs.200/- bimonthly, the opposite party had charged Rs.360/-
from the complainant from 22.7.2002 to 30.6.2005. In this way, the opposite party has recovered Rs.2385/- illegally from the complainant. The said case was contested by the appellants. After the parties produced affidavits / documents in support of their respective versions the learned District Forum, Gurdaspur accepted the complaint vide impugned judgment dated 27.3.2006 and directed the opposite party to charge the telephone rent from the complainant at the rural rate w.e.f. 22.7.2002 to 30.6.2005 and to refund the excess amount, if any, received from the complainant, to him.
2. Hence the appeal.
First Appeal No.797 of 2006 2
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the learned District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to decide the controversy involved in this complaint. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 1.9.2009 passed in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 "General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan & Anr.".
4. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
5. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
6. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Krishnan's case (supra) that specific remedy has been made available under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act for the customers. Therefore the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not available. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment as under:-
"The dispute in this case was regarding non- payment of telephone bill for the telephone connection provided to the respondent No.1 and for the said non-payment of the bill the telephone connection was disconnected. Aggrieved against the said disconnection, the respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. By order dated 26.11.2001, the Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant herein to re-connect the telephone connection to the respondent No.1 and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.
Aggrieved against the order of the Consumer Forum, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ Appeal before the First Appeal No.797 of 2006 3 Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench felt that the matter required consideration by a larger Bench and hence the matter was placed before the Full Bench. By the impugned order the Full Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ appeal. Hence, the appellant is before us by way of present appeal by special leave.
In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred."
7. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Consumer Forums do not have the jurisdiction and the remedy is available to the customers under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, therefore, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 27.3.2006 is set aside. The parties are relegated to the remedy available under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act.
8. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.250/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs.250/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft immediately.
9. The arguments in the case were heard on 14.1.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the parties be communicated about the same.
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Lt. Col. Darshan Singh [Retd.]) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member January 15, 2010.
Davinder