Kerala High Court
The General Manager vs Sonsumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 14 August, 2007
Author: H.L. Dattu
Bench: H.L.Dattu, K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 28545 of 1999(W)
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,TELECOM,T.V.M.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.N.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :14/08/2007
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.
...................................................................................
O.P. Nos. 28545 , 28588 AND 28589 OF 1999
...................................................................................
Dated this the 14th August, 2007
J U D G M E N T
H.L. Dattu, C.J.:
Since the questions of law raised in all these Original Petitions are same, these Original Petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by a common order.
2. The main contention of the petitioner before this court is that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to decide a lis between a subscriber and the Telecom Department.
3. The issues raised in these Original Petitions are no more resintegra in view of, what has been said by a Full Bench of this court in General Manager, Telecom, BSNL vs. Krishnan ( 2003 (1) KLT 817). In the said decision, the court has observed as under:
"The 1986 Act was enacted with the object of providing better protection to the consumer . It provides a complete and comprehensive mechanism. The authorities constituted under the Act perform judicial functions. Their orders are enforceable like the decree passed by a Civil Court. The provisions of the Act must be liberally construed and given full effect. The Act, as the plain language suggests, applies to all 'goods and services'. Thus, the services provided under the O.P. Nos. 28545 , 28588 AND 28589 OF 1999 2 Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are not excluded from the ambit of the 1986 Act. In view of the provisions of S. 3 of the 1986 Act, the remedy is in addition to that provided under S. 7B of the 1885 Act. It is not in derogation thereof. The option to invoke one or the other remedy lies with the aggrieved party."
4. In view of the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court, in our opinion, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to decide a lis between a subscriber of the telephone and the Telecome Department/Industry.
5. Accordingly, the Original Petitions require to be rejected and they are rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the Telecom Department, if they so desire, to file appropriate appeals against the orders passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum .
6. Pending Civil Miscellaneous Petitions in these Original Petitions are also disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.
lk O.P. Nos. 28545 , 28588 AND 28589 OF 1999 3 H.L. DATTU, C.J.& K.T. SANKARAN, J.
........................................................
O.P. Nos. 28545 , 28588 AND 28589 OF 1999.
......................................................... Dated this the 14th August, 2007.
J U D G M E N T