Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Bsnl vs Narain Dass Kataria on 25 March, 2010

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

                         First Appeal No.756 of 2006

                                              Date of Institution : 31.5.2006
                                              Date of Decision : 25.3.2010

     1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Ferozepur Telecom District through its
        General Manager.
     2. S.D.O. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Gidderbaha.
     3. Account Officer (TRA), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Abohar.

                                                         .........Appellants

                                    Versus

Narain Dass Kataria s/o Kishan Chand s/o Lekh Raj R/o Ward No.2 Mohalla
Thakur Dass Gidderbaha.
                                                   .........Respondent

                               Appeal against the order dated 3.3.2006
                               of District Consumer Forum, Muktsar.

BEFORE

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

PRESENT For the appellant : Sh.G.C.Babbar, Advocate For the respondent : None JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Narain Dass Kataria, respondent was having telephone connection no.232815. He filed a complaint against the appellants in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short the 'District Forum') challenging the legality and validity of telephone bills.

2. The appellants filed the written statement and contested the case.

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

Appeal 756/2006

4. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 3.3.2006 with cost of Rs.2,000/- and directed the appellants to restore the telephone connection.

5. Hence this appeal.

6. 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.".

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 3 Appeal 756/2006 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."

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 4 Appeal 756/2006 customers under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, therefore, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 3.3.2006 is set aside. The parties are relegated to the remedy available under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act.

10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount along with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.

11. 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 March 25, 2010 vr/-

Appeal 756/2006