Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Surinder Singh Son Of S.Natha Singh vs General Manager Telecom, Bharat ... on 23 April, 2010

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SCO NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH

                        First Appeal No.652 of 2007

                                              Date of Institution : 10.5.2007
                                              Date of Decision : 23.4.2010

Surinder Singh son of S.Natha Singh, resident of 22A, Madhuban Enclave,
Ludhiana.
                                                   .........Appellant

                                     Versus

General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Nagar
Chowk, Ludhiana.

                                                        .........Respondent

                             Appeal against the order dated 14.2.2007
                             of District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana.

BEFORE

       Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
               Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member

PRESENT For the appellant : None For the respondent : Sh.G.C.Babbar, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Surinder Singh, appellant was having telephone connection bearing no.2550212. He filed a complaint against the respondents in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the 'District Forum') challenging the legality and validity of telephone bills. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.

2. The respondents appeared in the District Forum and contested the case.

3. The parties produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.

4. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 14.2.2007.

Appeal 652/2007

5. Hence the appeal.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent 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.".

7. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.

8. 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 @ 3 Appeal 652/2007 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 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."

9. 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 4 Appeal 652/2007 dismissed. The parties are relegated to the remedy available under Section 7- B of the Telegraph Act.

10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

( JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL ) PRESIDENT ( MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA ) MEMBER April 23, 2010 vr/-

Appeal 652/2007