State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Reliance India Info-Com Ltd., vs Ramesh Chander Sharma & Others on 2 July, 2010
Mr. AMAR Kr. Vs rAMESH CHANDER.
STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,
PANCHKULA
First
Appeal Nos. 1752/04, 1338/05, 1796/05, 1015/06 and 503/07
Date of Decision: 02.07.2010
1)
Appeal No. 1752/04
M/s Reliance
India Info-com Ltd., S.C.O. 135-36, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through Mr. Amar Kumar Sundram,
Legal Head.
Appellant
(OP)
Versus
Ramesh Chander Sharma son of Shri Gian Chand Sharma,
Resident of House No.1413, Jauna Gali, Yamuna Nagar.
---Respondent
Reliance Industries Limited, IIIrd Floor, Maker
Chambers IV, 222, Nirman Point Mumbai-4000121 through its General Manager
or Managing Director.
Reliance Inforcom Limited, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt,
District Ambala, through its Manager.
MARVY Collection Centre ID, DLHIZ00008, Hotel Ranjit,
New Delhi.
Reliance Inforcom Limited, Calicut-673004.
Shri R.K. Mittal, resident of 10203, Padam Singh
Road, Jamuna House, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
Performa
Respondents.
Counsel: Shri D.K. Singal for appellant.
Order dated 27.04.2004
passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
has been challenged whereby complaint No.588/2003 with respect to non-releasing
the telephone connection to the complainant was accepted.
2)
Appeal No.1338/05
M/s Reliance
Inforcom Services
N.K. Tower
Ist Floor, G.T. Road,
Panipat through its Manager.
Reliance Inforcom Ltd. A Block Ist Floor, Dhiru Bhai
Ambani Knowledge City, Thana Belapur Road, Kopal, Khairane, Navi Mumbai
through its Managing Director.
Appellants
(OPs)
Versus
Satpal Verma
s/o Sh. Gian Parkash Verma R/o House No.650, Diwan Nagar, Panipat.
---Respondent
Counsel: Shri D.K. Singal for appellant.
Order dated 20.06.2005 passed by
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat has been challenged whereby
complaint No.343/2004 with respect to the dispute of telephone bill was
accepted.
3)
Appeal No.1796/2005
Yash Pal
Bhagra, s/o late R.D. Bhagra, R/o 2 Milap Nagar, 986/11, Hisar Road, Ambala
City.
Appellant
(Complainant)
Versus
1.
Reliance C.C. Annexie, 414, Opp. Old Session Courts, Ambala City.
2.
Reliance Industries Ltd., 3rd Floor Maker
Chamber-IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
Respondents
Counsel: Mr.
A.S. Khinda, Advocate for appellant.
Shri D.K. Singal
for respondents.
Order dated 18.08.2005 passed by
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala has been challenged whereby
complaint No.187/2004 with respect to the dispute of defective Mobile handset was dismissed.
4)
Appeal No.1015/2006
M/s Reliance Inforcomm. Ltd. Avidesh House 3rd
Floor Pritam Nagar
Ist Floor
Alias Bridge
Ahemdabad-380006.
Reliance Industries Ltd. 3rd Floor Maker
Chambers IV,222, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 through its Managing
Director.
Reliance Authorized Collection Centre 768, Sector 13,
Urban Estate, Karnal through its Authorized Representatives Mr. Gaurav.
Baljinder Singh, Authorised franchisee of Reliance
India Mobile near RKSD
Stadium Ambala Road, Kaithal.
Appellants
(OPs)
Versus
Virender Kumar Sirohi s/o Sh.
Chatar Singh r/o House No.1210/11, near P.W.D. (B&R) Rest House Ambala
Road, Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
---Respondent
(Complainant)
Counsel: Shri D.K. Singal Advocate for
appellants.
Mr. A.K. Bura, Advocate for
respondent-complainant.
Order dated 24.02.2006 passed by
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal has been challenged whereby
complaint No.269/2003 with respect to non-providing of telephone services to
the complainant, was accepted.
5)
Appeal No.503/2007
Brij Bhushan
son of late Shri Ishwar Chander c/o Neterpal Ishwar Chander, Spatu Road, Ambala City.
Appellant
(Complainant)
Versus
1.
Branch Incharge M/s Reliance Infocomm Services, 6349, Nicholson Road,
Ambala Cantt.
2.
M/s Reliance India Mobile, Maker Chamber-IV,222,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 through its Managing Director through Ambala Cantt
office.
3.
M/s Reliance Infocom Services, 425, Manauli House, Ambala City
through its Branch Manager.
---Respondents
(Ops)
Counsel: Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate for
appellant.
Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate for
respondents.
Order dated 10.01.2007
passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala has been
challenged whereby complaint No.8 of 2005 with respect to the dispute of supplying
second hand defective Mobile handset was
dismissed.
BEFORE:
Honble
Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President.
Dr.
Rekha Sharma, Member.
O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Vide this common order we shall dispose of the above mentioned five appeals as common question of law and facts is involved.
The complainants, who are respondents in appeal Nos. 1752/04, 1338/04, 1015/06, and appellants in appeal Nos.1796/05 and 503/07, filed their respective complaints seeking certain reliefs with respect to their respective grievances as enumerated in their complaints i.e. excess billing, non-restoration of the telephone connection, defective telephone handset supplied by the Company etc etc. and thus attributed deficiency of service on the part of Reliance Communication Ltd in their respective complaints before the respective District Fora.
Appeal Nos.1752/04, 1338/05 and 1015/06 have arisen out of the orders whereby the complaints have been accepted granting relief to the telephone subscribers and appeal Nos.1796/05 and 503/07 are against the orders whereby complaints have been dismissed.
It is pertinent to mention here that after issuing notices to the respondents they appeared through their respective counsel and the appeals were fixed for arguments. However, in the mean time learned counsel appearing on behalf of Reliance Communication Ltd., Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate has moved separate applications in each of the appeals with the prayer to decide the controversy involved between the parties in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 titled as General Manager, Telecom versus M. Krishnan & Anr. Decided on 01.09.2009. Mr. Singal has also produced a judgment passed in and have perused the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chenna in a bunch of appeals with the heading of Appeal No.460/2004 titled as The General Manager Versus Meenakshi Annie decided on 30.11.2009.
Appeal Nos.1796/2005 and 1015/06 are fixed for 11.8.2010 and 6.1.2011 and therefore have been preponed for today and are being disposed of having common question of law and fact in these appeals as well.
Heard.
The delay of 22 days in filing of appeal No.1752/2004 is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay moved alongwith the appeal.
We have perused the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 titled as General Manager, Telecom versus M. Krishnan & Anr. Decided on 01.09.2009 and have perused the order passed in a bunch of appeals with the heading of Appeal No.460/2004 titled as The General Manager Versus Meenakshi Annie decided on 30.11.2009, by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai.
Their Lordship of the Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 titled as General Manager, Telecom versus M. Krishnan & Anr. Decided on 01.09.2009 [cited as General Manager, Telecom versus M. Krishnan and another, 2009 CTJ 1062 (Supreme Court) (CP)], in para No.6 and 7 has held as under:-
6. In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:
Section 7B, Arbitration of Disputes-(1)
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraphs line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to as Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section.(2)
The award of the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court.
Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules.
7. It is well settled that the Special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the high Court was not correct in its approach.
Thus, in view of the above provision of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act it has been made clear by the Honble Supreme Court that when there is a special remedy under the Telegraph Act, then the controversy with respect to any grievance of the parties can be decided under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act and jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is barred.
The question for consideration before us is that in view of Section 7-B the dispute with respect to any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus shall be determined by arbitration for which the matter shall be referred to Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government and the award passed by the arbitrator shall be binding upon the parties.
The State Commission, Chennai while deciding a bunch of appeals including appeal No.460/2004 titled as The General Manager Versus Meenakshi Annie decided on 30.11.2009, has discussed Section 3 of the Telegraph Act, in para 11 of the judgment, which reads as under:-
11. Section 3 of the Telegraph Act defines telegraph means any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, and sound or intelligence of any nature by wire, visual or other electro-magnetic emissions, Radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means. Thus, the expression of telegraph, as defined in the Telegraph Act shall include telephones and all kind of telecommunication services. Either Internet or shifting the telephone or excess bill, are all related to telegraph line or with reference to apparatus etc., The Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 says All telephone connections and other similar services provided or authorized by the Department shall, unless governed by a separate contract, be subject to the conditions set forth in these rules. Subscriber is defined as Subscriber means a person to whom a telephone service has been provided by means of an installation under these rules or under an agreement. In all the cases, installation of the telephone apparatus should have been granted/installed under the rules or under the agreement as the case may be and therefore, who compliance any deficiency in service, against telecom authority cannot escape from the clutches of Section 7-B. Thus, settling, all the cases herein come under Section 7-B, it is to be seen further, whether the above said ruling should be followed or is there any possibility of deviating from the said ruling, based upon any other Supreme Court cases.
In view of the above interpretation of Section 3 of the Telegraph Act, it has been made clear that the Telegraph Act shall include telephones and all kinds of telecommunication services which include Internet or shifting the telephone or excess bill, relating to telegraph line or the apparatus etc. In The General Manager Versus Meenakshi Annies case (Supra) Article 141 of the Constitution of India has been discussed in para 19 of the judgment, which reads as under:-
19. Article 141 of Constitution of India mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts, within the territory of India which includes the Tribunals also, including this Commission and there cannot be any dispute and the same is further supported by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others Vs. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 261, wherein, their Lordship have held Judges are bound by precedents and procedure They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority.
Paras 22 and 23 of the above judgment of State Commission, Chennai reads as under:-
22. In Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs. Jagdeeshan reported in air 2002 Supreme Court, the Apex Court once again considered the binding nature of the previous rulings, and under what circumstances, it cannot be ignored at all, observing It is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the Apex Court on the ground that Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts in India.
It is the mandate of the Constitution as provided in Article 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. It was pointed out this Court in Anil Kumar Neotia V. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1353 that the High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court even through the point sought before the High Court was not considered by the Supreme Court. In view of this position, as declared by the Appellant, as submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants, the decision rendered by the Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Another cannot be eclipsed under the guise, that the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court, or other previous judgments of the Apex Court, were not considered by the Supreme Court, whereas, it should be presumed normally, that the Supreme Court should have taken into account the trite laws and has come to a just conclusion. If at all this Commission could use its discretion and interpret Section 7-B of Telegraph Act, when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority which is not available, whereas, the availability is straight to the point, that in view of Section 7-B, the jurisdiction of the Fora is ousted, whether it is implied or otherwise as observed by the Supreme Court.
23. An elaborate and forcible submission was made, by the learned counsel for the complainants, seeking support from the decision reported in AIR 1962 SC 159-Senior Electric Inspector Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Chopra, AIR 1985 sc 1585 Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India and others and AIR 1989 SC 1933 Union of India and another Vs. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs etc., when two conciliating decision are available, which ruling should be followed and how preference should be given etc., As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, in fact, no two conflicting rulings are available, and the only ruling available under Section 7-B of Telegraph Act, and its effect over Consumer Protection Act is, the ruling under General manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Another, and therefore, no question arises, which ruling should be followed, for which, no ruling is also necessary, and this submission deserves acceptance, being meritorious. So, no necessity arises, for us to distinguish the ruling, and conclude, Section7-B is not a bar. In fact, the above ruling is also followed by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in reliance Telecom Ltd., Vs. Jay Kumar Jain & Anr (An order passed in Appeal No.669/2008, dated 06.10.1999), and we find no reason, whatsoever not to follow the dictum of the Supreme Court judgment. For the foregoing reasons, the cases filed by the complainants, against the Telecommunication Services, whether it is BSNL or against others are all not maintainable, before Consumer Fora and the parties have to seek their remedies under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, before the Arbitrator who is to be appointed, by the Central Government. In this view, all the appeals filed by the opposite parties/Telecommunication Service, have to be allowed and the appeals filed by the complainants, those who have lost before the District Fora, have to be dismissed, as complaints are not maintainable.
After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the of these appeals and catena judgments discussed above in The General Manager Versus Meenakshi Annies case (Supra) we agree with the view taken by State Commission, Chennai. In view of the expression of telegraph defined in the Telegraph Act, it includes all kinds of telecommunication services and as such the complaints filed before the District Fora which have given rise to the filing of the present appeals are not maintainable.
Hence, the appeals Nos.1752/04, 1338/05 and 1015/06 filed on behalf of the Reliance Communication Ltd are accepted, the impugned orders passed by the District Fora are set aside and the complaints are dismissed. Consequently, the appeal Nos.1796/05 and 503/07 filed on behalf of complainants, are dismissed.
However, the parties would be entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act remained pending before the District Fora as well as the State Commission, provided the complainant approach the Court of competent jurisdiction within 60 days from the date of passing of this order.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties under postal certificate without any delay.
The statutory amount of Rs.3486/- and 11,900/- deposited in appeals Nos.1752/04 and 1015/06 respectively be refunded to the respective appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
The original judgment is attached with appeal No.1752/2004. Certified copies be attached with other appeal.
Announced: (Justice R.S. Madan) 02.07.2010 President (Dr. Rekha Sharma) Member