State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Telecom Divisional Engineer vs Sukhpal Singh Panwar on 5 February, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 200 / 2008
Telecom Divisional Engineer
Saharanpur Division
Saharanpur
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Sukhpal Singh Panwar
496/1, Civil Lines
(Opposite Kiran X-ray)
Roorkee - 247667
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. M.M. Lamba, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 05/02/2010
ORDER
This is service provider's appeal against the order dated 16.07.1994 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing consumer complaint No. 81 of 1994.
2. The complainant has alleged that telephone connection No. 72888 was installed at his residence. The said telephone was disconnected on 31.12.1993 due to non-payment of the bill, whereas the fact is that the complainant did not receive the bill dated 11.09.1993. The complainant obtained the duplicate bill on 30.12.1993. The complainant also did not receive the bill dated 11.11.1993. The telephone connection of the complainant was again disconnected. The complainant has further alleged that his telephone bill has never exceeded Rs. 600/- or Rs. 700/-. The bills dated 2 11.09.1993 and 11.11.1993 were issued for sum of Rs. 1,199/- and Rs. 1,681/- respectively. The complainant also received bill dated 11.01.1994 for sum of Rs. 3,667/-, in regard to which, the complaint was lodged, but no action was taken. The complainant made a request that his bills be corrected and the dynamic lock facility be provided to him. When no action was taken by the service provider, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the service provider. The said consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum, Haridwar per order impugned dated 16.07.1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the service provider has filed this appeal.
3. 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.
4. In view of above, the appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 16.07.1994 of the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 81 of 1994 is dismissed. The dispute raised by the complainant in the case is referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the service provider 3 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) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K