State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Mohinder Singh Son Of Charan Singh on 11 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1379 of 2004
Date of institution : 09.11.2004
Date of decision : 11.01.2010
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its General Manager, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar.
...Appellants
Versus
Mohinder Singh son of Charan Singh resident of House Built on Plot No. 53-A,
KOT Karnail Singh, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.
Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 24.09.2004
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Lt.Col.Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. G.C. Babbar, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate for Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT The respondent was having telephone connection No. 2491850. He filed the complaint in Learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum") challenging the legality and validity of the telephone bill dated 11.10.2002 for Rs. 2437/- , bill dated 11.06.2003 for Rs. 3194/- and bill dated 11.08.2003 for Rs. 10756/-.
2. The case was contested by the appellants.
3. Parties filed the affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
4. Learned District Forum considered the matter and accepted the complaint vide order dated 24.09.2004 and set aside the two bills for an amount of Rs. 3194/- and Rs. 10756/-.
5. Hence the 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. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
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 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 impugned judgment dated 24.09.2004 is set aside. The parties are relegated to the remedy available under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT January 11, 2010. (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.]) Rupinder MEMBER (Piare Lal Garg,) Member