State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Telecom District Manager, B.S.N.L. ... vs Sonu Son Of Sh.Rajinder Kumar on 29 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1369 of 2004
Date of institution: 08.11.2004
Date of decision : 29.10.2009
Telecom District Manager, B.S.N.L. Vakila Bazar, Hoshiarpur.
.....Appellants
Versus
Sonu son of Sh.Rajinder Kumar resident of B-3/114, Sham Gali, Ist Floor,
Danadurpur Road, Hoshiarpur.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 26.08.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.G.C.Babbar, Advocate For the respondent : None JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Sonu respondent was having telephone connection No.236890. By filing the complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short "the District Forum"), the respondent challenged the legality and validity of the telephone bills for the period from 11.03.2001 to 11.04.2002 and also the notice dated 30.08.2003. He also challenged the disconnection of the telephone connection.
2. The appellants filed the written reply and pleaded that the respondent has not made the payment of the telephone bill to the tune of Rs.13827/- for the period from 11.03.2001 to 11.04.2002. Therefore, the telephone was disconnected on 20.03.2002. The last bill dated 01.04.2002 was for Rs.818/- which was outstanding against the respondent. First Appeal No.1369 of 2004 2
4. Parties produced the affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
5. The learned District Forum considered the matter and accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.500/- vide impugned judgment dated 26.8.2004 and the appellants were directed to withdraw the bills for the period from 11.03.2001 to 11.04.2002 and to withdraw the notice dated 30.8.2003.
6. Hence, the appeal.
7. 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 reported as "General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan & Anr III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC)."
8. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
9. 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 First Appeal No.1369 of 2004 3 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 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."
10. 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 First Appeal No.1369 of 2004 4 impugned judgment dated 26.08.2004 is set aside. The parties are relegated to the remedy available under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act.5.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER October 29, 2009.
Paritosh