State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Karan Singh Pannu on 13 October, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA. First Appeal No. 1689 of 2007 Date of Institution: 3.7.2007 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 1 M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Earlier known as Bharti Televentures Ltd.) having its registered offce, at H-5/12, Qutab Ambience, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi, and having its Circle office at C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-II, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2 M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s Bharti Televentures Ltd) Circle office 85, Durand Road, Ambala Cantt-133001. Appellants- OPs. No.1&2. VERSUS 1 Karan Singh Pannu son of Sh. Mange Ram R/o H. No.77, Aggarsain Colony, Panipat. Respondent-complainant. 2 Airtel Office through its Incharge Panipat office, Prince Communication, NK Tower, G.T. Road, Panipat. 3 Anil Communication, Gaba Dhaba, Assandh Road, Panipat. Respondents-OPs No.3&4. BEFORE:- Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellants-opposite parties.
Sh. Manoj Kaushik Adovate, for the respondent-complainant.
O R D E R:
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN, PRESIDENT:
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.5.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby complaint filed by the respondent-complainant has been accepted by granting following relief:-
For the reasons recorded above, we accept the complaint and direct the Ops jointly and severally to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner for deficiency in services and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The facts, in brief of the present case are that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties in respect of Cellular connection bearing No.98966-07236. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that the opposite parties withdrew the outgoing service of the aforesaid connection on 20.7.2006 without any intimation despite the fact the all the necessary documents were supplied to the opposite parties. Alleging it a case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant and took the plea that after verification of the documents, the address of the complainant was found incorrect and the outgoing service was withdrawn on 25.7.2006. Denying any kind of deficiency of service on their parts, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Heard.
The Honble Supreme Court has decided the controversy involved in the present case in a recent pronouncement in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, titled as General Manager Telecom Versus M.Krishnan & Anr, decided on 01.09.2009, reported as 2009 (4) C.C.C. page 1 while deciding the controversy with regard to the billing of the telephone of the respondents, has ousted the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora with the following observations:-
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.
Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:-
S.7-B Arbitration of Disputes:-
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraphs authority and the person of whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall for the purpose of such determination be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section.
(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub S.(1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court.
Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraphs Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules.
It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach.
Thus, in view of the above provision of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act it has been made clear by the Honble Supreme Court that when there is a special remedy under the Telegraph Act, then the controversy with respect to any grievance of the parties can be decided under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act and jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is barred.
This Commission while deciding a bunch of appeals including Appeal No.1752 of 2004 titled as M/s Reliance India Info-com Ltd., Vs. Ramesh Chander Sharma and others decided on 02.7.2010 has relied upon the decision of the State Commission Chennai in Appeal No.460 of 2004 titled as The General Manager Vs. Meenakshi Annie decided on 30.11.2009, wherein Section 3 of the Telegraph Act has been discussed in detail. In the aforesaid decision in appeal No.1752 of 2004 titled M/s Reliance India Info-com Ltd., Vs. Ramesh Chander Sharma and others (supra) this Commission has observed as under:-
After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of these appeals and catena judgments discussed above in The General Manager Vs. Meenakshi Annies case (Supra) we agree with the view taken by State Commission, Chennai. In view of the expression of telegraph defined in the Telegraph Act, it includes all kinds of telecommunication services and as such the complaints filed before the District Fora which given rise to the filing of the present appeals are not maintainable.
The instant case is fully covered by the case cited supra.
Accordingly, this appeal is accepted and complaint is dismissed with a liberty to the parties to approach the Authority mentioned in the Honble Apex Court judgment to resolve their controversy involved in this case.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties under postal certificate at the earliest.
The statutory amount of Rs. 11650/-deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification as per rules on the subject.
13th October 2010. Justice R.S. Madan President.
Kr Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member.
Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.