State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sara Services & Engineers (Pvt) Ltd. vs Union Of India Through Telecom District ... on 7 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA
DUN
FIRST
APPEAL NO. 19 / 2005
Sara
Services & Engineers (Pvt) Ltd.
through
its Joint Director
Sh.
V.K. Dhawan
7/1,
Pritam Road, Dehradun
......Appellant
/ Complainant
Versus
1. Union
of India through
Telecom
District Manager
Subhash
Road, Dehradun
2. Telecom
District Manager
Subhash
Road, Dehradun
3. Accounts
Officer (Revenue)
Telecommunication
Department
Subhash
Road, Dehradun
......Respondents
/ Opposite Parties
Sh.
J.K. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh.
M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant,
Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated:
07/01/2010
ORDER
(Per:
Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is complainant's appeal against the order dated 07.12.2004 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, dismissing consumer complaint No. 434 of 1998.
2. Telephone connection No. 620367 was provided by the service provider to the complainant - company. The said telephone was installed at the residence of Brig. K.P.S. Dhillon, the employee of the complainant - company. The said person shifted to Chandigarh in the year 1996 and the complainant moved an application before the service provider on 21.05.1996 for the transfer of the said telephone to 14, Sumanpuri, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun. The bills upto 01.07.1996 in respect of the said telephone were paid by the complainant. The complainant received a bill from the service provider on 01.09.1996 for sum of Rs. 45,463/-. According to the complainant, the average bill of the telephone in question has never exceeded Rs. 5,000/-. Later on, the telephone connection was disconnected. The complainant deposited sum of Rs. 45,668/- with the service provider on 08.12.1998. According to the complainant, the said bill was of excessive amount and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the service provider, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.
3. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint per impugned order dated 07.12.2004. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the consumer complaint, the complainant filed this appeal.
4. Considering the nature of the dispute raised by the complainant, the same need to be legally resolved by arbitration, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as has been recently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another; III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the legal principle that the special law overrides the general law, hence in the face of the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the dispute pertaining to telephone bill can not be entertained and decided by a Fora constituted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said decision has also been followed by us in our decision dated 20.11.2009 rendered in First Appeal Nos. 246 of 2006 & 247 of 2006 and decision dated 03.12.2009 in First Appeal No. 47 of 2008.
5. Therefore, in the face of above legal aspects of the case, the appeal need to be dismissed and the dispute is to be determined by arbitration under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
6. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed. However, the dispute raised by the complainant in the case is referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the service provider and an award to the dispute shall be delivered by the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs.
(SMT.
KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K