State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Som Dutt vs General Manager, Telecom Bsnl & Anr. on 27 November, 2009
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA, CAMP AT HAMIRPUR. --- FIRST APPEAL NO.22/2009. DATE OF DECISION: 27.11.2009 Som Dutt S/O Shri Parma Nand, R/O Village Tikker Brahmana, Tappa Bani, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. Appellant. Versus 1. General Manager (Telecom.), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hamirpur, H.P. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Telecom.), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Barsar, The. Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. Respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President. Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellant: Mr. O.S. Patiyal, Advocate, alongwith appellant who has been identified as such by his learned Counsel. For the Respondents. Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).
1. When hearing in this appeal commenced, to our query, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly stated that dispute between the parties is governed under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Further according to him, due to signal problem, his client approached the respondents to disconnect the post-paid connection. On needful not being done, he was forced to file consumer complaint No.16/2007 before the District Forum, Hamirpur, Camp at Barsar. This complaint was dismissed on 14.11.2008. By referring to the complaint as well as other material placed on record by the parties, he submitted that this appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order and consequently allowing complaint filed by his client.
2. We would have ordinarily gone into this question but looking to the law of the land as per provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and also keeping in view the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687of 2004, General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan & Anr. And other connected cases, decided on 1.9.2009, jurisdiction of the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to entertain dispute relating to Indian Telegraph Act is barred. However, remedy if any available to a aggrieved person like the appellant is to take recourse under Section 7B of the said Act.
3. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by now the claim of his client may have become barred by limitation, therefore he will be left remediless. Suffice it to say in this behalf that the appellant was bonafide prosecuting the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as such in case he approaches the authorities/any Court of law under the India Telegraph Act, 1885, we are sure that he will be extended the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This appeal is dismissed subject to this observation, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that copy of this order may be sent to him at his address, Sub Divisional Courts Complex, Barsar, District Hamirpur, free of cost as per rules and Mr. Ratish Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents has undertaken to collect the same from the Court Secretary at Shimla in the like manner. Office will send the copy to Mr. Patiyal as aforesaid.
Hamirpur, November 27, 2009.
( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.) President ( Chander Shekhar Sharma ) /BS/ Member