State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jagdish Singh Chauhan vs Mtnl Through Cmd Mtnl on 8 July, 2011
1 IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 08-07-2011 Case No. FA-11/50 (Arising from the order dated 06-01-2011 passed in complaint case No. 688/2010 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (New Delhi), K.G. Marg, New Delhi) JAGDISH SINGH CHAUHAN, - APPELLANT A-402, Sector 10/33, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075 Versus MTNL THROUGH CMD MTNL - RESPONDENT Regd. Office: Jeevan Bharti Tower 1, 12th Floor, 124-Connauhht Circus, New Delhi - 110001 CORAM : JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI - President MS KANWAL INDER - Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? MS KANWAL INDER ORDER
1. We have heard the appellant on the point of admission and have perused the record.
2. Vide this appeal the appellant is assailing order of District Forum New Delhi dated 06-01-2011, whereby, after hearing the parties on the point of maintainability of the complaint, the District Forum vide detailed reasoned order rejected the complaint on the ground that the whole dispute as mentioned in the complaint relates to telephone line or telephone no. 2507520 and other services such as broadband and e-mail etc., and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is no more available as held by the Honble Supreme Court of India and other authorities and hence complaint cannot continue before the Forum.
3. The ground taken in this regard in appeal is that the decision relied upon by OP and the Forum is regarding instrument dispute and disconnection of service for non-payment of dues and is not applicable to the facts of the complaint of the appellant. This submission is of no avail. Honble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7686 of 2004 has observed that Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all service relating to the telephones are subject to Telegraph rules. Referring to Provisions of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, the Highest Court of the Land has ruled that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred, holding that it is well settled that the special law overrides general law. Following the same, Honble National Commission vide order dated 01-04-2010 in Revision Petition No. 4507 of 2009 has dismissed the complaint about the malfunctioning of mobile telephone. As per the impugned order, the complaint pertains to services provided by the OP regarding telephone connection 25075270 alleging that it was installed wrongly, it did not work properly, was misused and its bills were wrongly sent and prayer is for relief against the OP pertaining to that telephone connection. The impugned order is as per Law pronounced by the Apex Court.
4. For the reasons stated above we come to the conclusion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
Therefore this appeal is dismissed in limine.
5. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost, one copy be sent to the concerned District Forum and the file be consigned to record room after needful is done.
(JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI) PRESIDENT (KANWAL INDER) MEMBER av