State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Telecom Jalgaon, vs Arvind Bhikaji Bhatt, on 28 October, 2010
1 F.A.No. :2448 to 2451/99,2462/99 & 2463/99
Date of filing:20.12.1999
Date of order:28.10.2010
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
F.A. NO.: 2448 to 2451/99 & 2462, 2463/99
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. : 188/98, 187/98, 186/98, 191/08, 189/98,
190/98
DISTRICT FORUM :JALGAON.
General Manger,
Telecom Jalgaon,
Dist.Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Opponent)
VERSUS
Arvind Bhikaji Bhatt,
7, Ganesh Colony,
Asstt.Income Tax Commissioner,
'Manisha' Vyankatesha Nagar,
Hotgi Road, Solapur-413 003. ...RESPONDENT
(Org.Complainant)
Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Shri.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.V.N.Upadhye for appellant,
Respondent in person.
O R A L O R D E R
Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. These appeals have been filed by General Manager, B.S.N.L. against the common judgment and order dated 20.11.1999 in complaint case No. 188/98, 187/98, 186/98, 191/08, 189/98, 190/98 passed by District Forum, Jalgaon.
2 F.A.No. :2448 to 2451/99,2462/99 & 2463/992. Respondent/Org.Complainant`s cases before the Forum are that, complainant was having phone No.26309. He challenges the bill dated 1.12.1997 for Rs.4539/- for the period 16.9.97 to 15.11.97, bill dated 1.4.98 for the period 16.1.98 to 15.3.98 for Rs.707/-, bill dated 1.8.98 for the period 16.5.1998 to 15.7.98 for Rs.325/-, bill dated 1.9.98 for the period 16.6.97 to 15.08.97 for Rs.6909/-, bill dated 1.2.98 for the period 16.11.97 to 15.01.98 for Rs.1648/-, bill dated 1.10.97 for the period 16.8.97 to 15.9.97 for Rs.11,169/- which was reduced to Rs.1989 and bill dated 1.2.98 for period 16.11.97 to 15.1.98 for Rs.1628/-. It is contended that phone in question was not in use by the complainant.
3. Appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. Appellant denied the contention that bills are in excessive and are not correct. After receiving complaint of complainant they have investigated matter in detail and found that bills issued are correct.
4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaints and cancelled the bills in question and directed not to charge the rent and minimum charges as telephone was disconnected for the period in question. Forum also directed appellant to restore connection within 15 days. Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.5000/- towards damages and Rs.2000/- towards cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Jalgaon, General Manager,Telecom came in appeal.
3 F.A.No. :2448 to 2451/99,2462/99 & 2463/996. Notices were issued to the appellants as well as respondents in all appeals. Learned counsel Shri.V.N.Upadhye appeared on behalf of appellant whereas respondent appeared in person. We heard both the parties. Learned counsel Shri.Upadhye submitted that dispute involving meter reading and excess billing is to be settled U/s 7B of Indian Telegraph Act and oust the jurisdiction of Fora. Learned counsel in that respect relied on 'General Manager,Telecom -Vs-M.Krishnan & Anr.' reported in III(2009)CPJ 71 SC. Learned counsel further submitted that arbitrator was appointed for resolving the dispute in question. He also submitted that Arbitrator passed the award. If respondents would have aggrieved by the said award he would have approached the Arbitrator. Learned counsel in that respect relied on General Manager, Calcutta Telephones -Vs- Argha Mitra' reported in 1997(I) CPJ 3(NC).
7. On the other hand, respondent in person opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for appellant . According to him Dist. Forum has passed the award in his favour which is required to be confirmed. He further submitted that order passed by Arbitrator is on the basis of incomplete and incorrect details supplied by Telecom Department, Jalgaon. Thus he does not accept the award in question.
8. We perused the papers. On perusal of papers, it reveals that the dispute is in respect of billing in question. It is the contention of respondent that though phone was not in use the bills have been issued. In M.Krishna and another`s case(Supra) the Hon`ble Supreme Court has held that;
Consumer Protection Act,1986-Telegraph Act, 1885-Section 7B- Telegraph Rules-Rules 413, 443-Jurisdiction-Telephone-Telephone 4 F.A.No. :2448 to 2451/99,2462/99 & 2463/99 Connection disconnected for no-payment of bill-Re-connection with compensation awarded by Consumer Forum - Appeal to Supreme Court- Held: Special remedy provided under Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act- Special law overrides general law-Remedy under Consumer Protection Act, barred by implication - Orders of Consumer Forum and High court set aside.
As per ratio of Hon`ble Supreme Court dispute involving meter reading and excess billing is to be settled U/s 7B of Indian Telegraph Act which oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. Hon`ble Apex Court has observed that, " 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".
9. It has also come on record that appellant had appointed Arbitrator and present complainants had appeared before the Arbitrator for resolving dispute. It also appears that Arbitrator passed the award on 13.4.2000 in the dispute in question. Consumer Fora has no power to entertain the appeal against award rendering U/s 7B of Indian Telegraph Act,1885. Sub-section 2 of Section 7B provides that " the Award of the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section(1) shall be conclusive to the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court". Even if no finality is attached to the Award made under Section 7B, it may be open to challenge in appropriate proceedings but the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to sit in appeal or review the awards made by the Arbitrator under Section 7B of the 'Indian Telegraph Act'. The complainant himself has mentioned that Arbitrator has passed the award on 13.4.2000. If the complainant is aggrieved by the award passed by Arbitrator he is to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. In the circumstances, the judgment and order passed by the Forum is required to be quashed and set aside. We pass the following order.
5 F.A.No. :2448 to 2451/99,2462/99 & 2463/99O R D E R
1. All the appeals are allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Respondent is at liberty to challenge the award passed by Arbitrator in the appropriate proceedings.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh, Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane